who needs cells?

The capitalistic approach to handling Henrietta's cells highlights a major moral problem in our society that is still evident today. More effort is put forth 'for the greater good' to find cures or treatments yet the people themselves are often ignored or lacking resources such as basic health care. Unfortunately even with emphasis on finding treatments, this is usually directed more for the purposes of developing patents and pharmaceuticals. I felt that Skloot illustrated this point rather well, however, I am still concerned that her method of approach, while more appealing to some, limited the perspective audience in the sense that the constant switch between narrative and autoethnographic was a little distracting. Overall, I am glad that she went through multiple perspectives to illustrate the bigger theme spurred by Henrietta's life and the immortality of her cells.

Dewey out of date?

David Weinberger comments in his book Everything is Miscellaneous that the Dewey decimal classification system is out of date and I am inclined to agree. Studying the mentality of Dewey through his subject headings has left me with a feeling of going back in time. So this leads to an important question. Is the Dewey decimal system worth updating? Or should we develop a new system? More importantly, how do we even make that decision? If the world of information is always being transformed as Weinberger so bluntly states towards the end of his book, how do we react to this transformation? He further states that traditional knowledge changes by staying the same. Which makes me question how do we determine what is traditional knowledge versus what is nontraditional knowledge? I suppose this would depend on several factors, one of which being the field of study that is in question. In library science, what would be considered traditional knowledge? Would the Dewey decimal system apply? If so, is it changing by staying the same? Is it alright to change this traditional knowledge? Some could argue that by staying the same it isn't changing enough to fit with the changes brought on by time and social expectation.

The name game

Naming information is not only an important process, but a delicate one. This being said, there is a necessary balance when entering the naming process. The example provided in Hope Olson's article , The Power to Name: Representation in Library Catalogs, discusses Cutter's theory on there only being two naming options-logic or absurdity. I would agree with Olson's analysis that it is presumptuous to assume that there is such a restrictive limit on naming for that indicates that the process of creating a name is much less complex than evidence suggests. Amongst this evidence is the broad element of culture or race and the slang terms or connotations that can sometimes be associated with this element as a result of the dictates of society. Although certain words or expressions as they relate to a respective group, person, or practice may be appropriate during a given time or situation, these words may not provide the best naming conventions in a public setting with regards to a library institution. Public institutions, libraries only being one example, must stay up-to-date with current and appropriate terminology in respect to the information they are naming.

Information as Information (knowledge vs. thing)

The discussion between 'information-as-knowledge' and 'information-as-thing' as presented by Michael Buckland in his article, Information as Thing, displays a bone of contention that has existed in academic discussion for centuries. Granted, this discussion has evolved with the implementation and advancement of technology, but the basic foundational principles are more or less the same. Where some individuals argue that 'knowledge' should take precedence over 'thing' because 'thing' could not possibly represent the full component of knowledge, there are others who see 'thing' or the data/document as the more essential component of the information process. However, I feel that more people fall somewhere in the middle and recognize that both 'knowledge' and 'thing' support one another. Without the input of 'knowledge' it is difficult to create and understand 'thing,' however, without the evidence of 'thing,' the observations created by displaying 'knowledge' are not supported or in some cases respected by those who are trying to understand the information from an outside perspective.

When does tissue become an issue?

The discussion in the article, Body of Research - Ownership and Use of Human Tissue, about the issue over ownership of donated tissue inspires a similar train of thought on documents containing personal information about a persons life and function in society. If there is a debate about the rights an individual has over any body parts or tissues they may have donated, how should we approach private documents after the person no longer has an attachment to these documents? In other words, once a person dies, do their private records still need to be protected if those records can help those still living? If a tissue sample that was once under the protection of the principles that insure certain rights over the relationship a person has with their body is void once separated from that body, can the same be said for documentation? In other words, when do the laws that protect certain documents become inappropriate?

Access to Online Records. Too much information?

The opinion on privacy varies from person to person and generation to generation. While some individuals feel comfortable posting their every move on sites such as facebook, there are others who feel facebook is an invasive social tool. This resistance might have something to do with how much people feel they need to have control over their lives. When it comes to personal information that could be used for identity theft or other harmful practices, it is not difficult to see why there are so many individuals who still resist the freedom of information flow that is only growing with time. "Much of this information is scattered about in bits and pieces, but the fact remains that individuals have effectively lost control of personal information" (Byrne 5-6). However, there are some benefits to having information more readitly accessible. For the purposes of research, it is rather convenient to have less red tape when investigating a thesis or theory. Thus, while there is obviously a clear line that should not be crossed when it comes to what information is made more available, the question becomes where should that line be?