News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
It's two centuries old. Who gives a fuck?
Also, Havard has a museum of anatomy. It has things like the skull of Phineas Gage, the man who survived a railroad spike going through his brain. Did Gage volunteer to have his head there? No. His physician donated it.
Why doesn't Harvard care about those human remains getting a "final respectful disposition?" I'm guessing they'll argue they have educational value and it's okay to put human remains on display all the time rather than occasionally, even if the person whose remains they are did not volunteer their body parts to be displayed in a museum.
You don't need technology to determine if that's Phineas Gage's skull. We know it is.
https://countway.harvard.edu/center-history-medicine/collections-research-access/warren-anatomical-museum-collection
Maybe the difference is that one is a one-of-a-kind medical oddity that was used for research and education and is a fixture in the fields of neurology and psychology, and the other is used for shock value and hazing rituals?
Was Gage's skull uses for educational purposes that couldn't be gotten from the information when he was still alive? And was that worth keeping it for well over a century?
Well, when he was alive, he was still using it. That does kinda put a damper on things, from an educational point of view.
Honestly, yes. At this point in time, Phineas Gage's skull and the knowledge gleaned from the study of it has been used to educate thousands upon thousands of people, and then each of those multitudes of educated people went on to improve the lives of thousands and thousands of people. That's pretty damn good for one single cadaver.
I still remember a conversation I had with a psyche major who had no idea who Phineas Gage was and thought it was an unimportant minor footnote in psych. What a twat.
What would they learn from the actual skull that they couldn't learn from a copy?
For one, veracity. There are lots of unsubstantiated claims similar to this one, just look at the National Enquirer if you'd like an example. This one is real, with verifiable proof, meaning we can use it as a foundation to build more knowledge on top of. Seeing as there is no moral or ethical way to remove someone's left frontal lobe as a science experiment, it is as close to a case study as we are ever likely to get.
It's already been verified. So it can be copied. What would the original achieve that a copy would not?
Lots of things were "verified" in 1860. Shit, washing your hands before surgery wasn't even a common medical practice until the 1870s. The whole point of keeping the original is so that it can stand up to the rigors of modern science and technology.
Technology and knowledge in 150 years will make today's science seem sincere but laughable, just like today's science makes 1860 seem sincere but laughable. That's why you must preserve scientific evidence whenever and wherever you can.
Then keep the book too. Who knows what we could learn about it 150 years from now?
The information of the book is encoded in the markings on its pages, not the molecular makeup of the binding holding the pages together. Meanwhile, it is the fact that this skull is made of bone that gives it its veracity.
Up until now you've been here making good faith arguments, it'd be cool if you could keep that up.
I'm not giving a bad faith argument. Both are historical artifacts. Both can be analyzed scientifically because of that. In 150 years, technology to examine that book might be able to, for example, simulate what that person looked like based on their DNA. I do not think historical artifacts should be disposed of solely because they are made from human remains.
That is a bad faith argument because the physical appearance of the person whose skin binds the cover of a book has absolutely no relevance to the information in the book. In fact, it wasn't even Arsene Houssaye who bound the book in skin-- it was the book's first owner, Dr. Ludovic Bouland, who did that.
Can you tell me what the color of a dead stranger's eyes whose skin was added to a book by a third party has to do with a nineteenth century French novelist's views on the soul and life after death?
You can't, because there is no relevance to be had. It's a bad faith argument.
It has to do with who the person who's skin was used as a book binding was. We have no idea. This would be no different from archaeologists today doing facial reconstructions of a skeleton in, for example, an excavation of a medieval Christian cemetery. Any information about the past could be important. Especially when it comes to humans. It's preserving it for the sake of basic scientific investigation into the person so that we can learn as much as there will ever be possible to learn about them.
My friend, did you even read the article before you typed up your comments? What you're describing is exactly why they're removing the binding. FTA:
Yes, and I am arguing that just doing the investigations now and getting rid of it robs future scientists with better technology of an opportunity to learn something that current scientists can't.
And also, you're contradicting yourself. Your original comment opens with "who the fuck cares, it's 200 years ago" and now you're saying any information about the past could important?
Bad.
Faith.
They put together an entire report on human remains in their collection back in 2022 if you want to read their thoughts on the matter:
https://provost.harvard.edu/files/provost/files/harvard_university-_human_remains_report_fall_2022.pdf
I'm just scanning it, so I may be missing things, but it seems to be mostly about indigenous and slave body parts. A quick search reveals that Phineas Gage is not even mentioned. So their thoughts on the matter seem pretty inconsistent.
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say their thoughts are one way or another after just skimming or Ctrl+Fing the document for less than 3 minutes. Furthermore, Gage's own family donated his skull to Harlow, and Harlow donated it to Harvard, so with the exception of Gage himself the transaction was consensual. Plus Gage gave the tamping iron to Harvard Medical School personally, so there's not as much ethical gray area with his case as there would be with someone who's remains were taken without anyone's permission. That doesn't seem inconsistent at all, especially since most of the recommendations in the report hinge on acknowledgement of humanity and historical context, rather than focusing on a binary conclusion about whether or not remains are ok to keep.
Would you say the same if the skull was of a slave?
If the immediate family of the person donated it, sure.
But even still, it's not about what my opinion is. They have a committee who reviews these things case by case, and they're making recommendations about their archives based on historical context, educational value, and the individual being studied.
edit to add: Gage himself engaged with Harvard, and he wasn't held against his will. He knew he was a subject of analysis, and his family willingly donated his remains to an educational end. The two are not comparable in any way, shape, or form.
As I said, they would argue Gage's remains have educational value while the book does not. I do not agree with that. Either both have educational value (and the book arguably does too) so they should be kept, or neither does.
They conclude that "the human remains used in the book’s binding no longer belong in the Harvard Library collections, due to the ethically fraught nature of the book’s origins and subsequent history". You'd really do much better engaging with the argument they've actually made, rather than the one you think they're making.
No, I did read it. I just don't think that Gage's acquisition was any more ethical. Even if his relatives donated it to the physician, I would say that-
A) Gage himself did not consent and it should have been his choice, not his relatives' choice
and
B) The subsequent history was basically the doctor donating the skull he was given, again without any consent, and the value seems to be "look at the weird thing happened once to this one person and is unlikely to happen again," which is basically the same as getting your skin bound as a book except there are multiple examples of that.
What is the actual educational value of Gage's skull? What makes giving someone a body part without their permission and the receiver then passing it along elsewhere ethical?
I simply disagree with their assessment that Gage's skull is any more ethical or has any more educational value than a book bound in human skin. Both are preserved as curiosities. Either keep both or get rid of both.
But personally, I think both happened so long ago and weren't the result of colonialism or slavery, so I have no issue with either one.
Besides, that's not even the only book bound in human skin in Massachusetts, so this is mostly virtue signaling from my perspective.
Did Gage specify what he wanted done with his remains? (I don't know the answer to that.) If a person doesn't specify, I would accept the choice of their next-of-kin as ethical.
I don't know the answer to that either, but I doubt the answer was "put me on display in a museum for 164 years."
The museum is permanently closed and its collections are only available to researchers by appointment only.
Okay, but I'm not sure why that's any different from showing off the book sometimes or why Gage's skull is acceptable but this book is not.
There is likely medical knowledge to gain from seeing and understanding Gage's injury that can help other people with headwounds. Not from the binding of a book.
And that hasn't been understood in the time period between 1820 and 2024?
And a cast of the skull wouldn't be just as useful?
It has been understood by some for a long time, but not all. Especially when morbid curiosity is what brings visitors to your museum; without that morbid curiosity, you likely can't make enough to stay open.
NAGPRA was renegotiated by a Native American Secretary of the Interior and, wouldn't you know, having diverse voices helps people understand things differently, thus the massive change this year in the way museums display human remains. That's a good thing. Be mad about the past so it doesn't happen again, but also be glad that the display stops now.
As for using a cast, I'm sure they have one. But I don't know if using one affects how medical research is conducted.
Oh yeah ETA: until the advent of the Internet, doctors coming to a place to examine collections of medical specimens was indeed the only way to do certain kinds of medical research.
Fair point. It is more about the psychology of the issue rather than the source material itself. The skull is as is. It was not reworked and processed and it stands as a natural and dark remainder of a common fate. The othet is a purposefully crafted ornament in a not natural context, which says more about the mind of the original crafter than a fact of nature.
That said, why remove it now. If amything that was even more of a curiosity, albeit a morbid one. I would have kept it. I am aware of legends and stories of such cruel local lords of the middle ages that they had a fabled chest decorated with human skin. Just a legend. But that speak of the reputation of a long gone family, doesn't it?
Edit:
Even without that binding, the text itself still preserves some of its nature. It does make you feel uncomfortble, to know that the original author had done that on purpose.
I think it's fine to keep both the skull and the book at this point. They were not taken in some sort of colonialist archaeological expedition or anything. I really don't have a problem with either one. That was what I was trying to get at. Harvard is doing something that is performative. It does not make up for any major wrongdoing because there was no major wrongdoing in either case. Were both unethically procured? Sure. But it's really not worth worrying about it the same way it would for a skeleton of an ancient Navajo or something.
I gather this has something to do with it. It's the item that got the most attention due to of the way it was (allegedly, as I don't have any examples) presented to the public by Harvard, which was deemed inappropriate. I guess if they would have handled the item more respectfully, it would not have gotten as much as a push to remove the binding as it did, because there are tons of books, shoes, wallets, etc and whatnot from back in the day that use human skin. Hell, even the original owner of Des Destinées de L’Ame had another book bound in skin.
So it seems it just came down to the handling and presentation.