SPEAKER: First of all, I'd like
to thank the bioethics center

for having me, Mary,
Faith, and Kirk.

I'm an anthropologist, so
I'm in the land of ethics

almost by accident.

And how I came to
ethics was because I

studied a procedure, episiotomy,
which is done at birth on women.

And it has been
questioned, but there

hasn't been a lot of recognition
of the ethical problems that

come with this procedure.

And so that slowly took me
into the land of ethics.

And from there, from
this bodily inscription,

I got interested
into plastination,

which is a very weird way of
working your way into ethics.

But nevertheless, I just
wanted to let you know this.

Plastination is a
peculiar practice.

It reinvents
anatomical traditions

and creates a new journey
into a shifting hyper reality,

the science museum exhibit.

Perhaps it is the science
frontier character

that makes plastination
exhibitions so popular.

However, the new frontier,
whether colonial or scientific,

has often been a place
of ethical uncertainty,

where individual rights can be
suspended with troubling ease.

[INAUDIBLE]

The human body is an
extremely rich biocultural

and biopolitical entity, and
throughout history, we've

seen some pretty
strange uses of the body

today, what looks to us as
pretty strange examples.

This is another picture of
the chapel of bones in Rome.

Most Catholics today
would feel that this

is a rather strange use of human
remains in Italy or elsewhere.

Next slide.

This, on the other hand, is
a different representation.

Some of you may recognize this.

This is Chris Ofili,
The Holy Virgin Mary.

When the African madonna was
exhibited at the Brooklyn

Museum, it created
a great controversy

because Ofili's use of
elephant dung and cutouts

from pornographic magazines
was considered disrespectful

for the representation
of this holy figure.

In 1990-- 1999, rather--

Dennis Heiner, a
72-year-old Christian,

threw white paint across this
picture with the intention

of disfiguring it and spreading
the paint on it because he said

it was blasphemous.

In addition to Mr. Heiner,
Mr. Rudolph Giuliani

also threatened to evict
the museum from its location

if it didn't suspend
the exhibition,

if it didn't cancel the exhibit.

In return, the museum
filed a lawsuit

for First Amendment
rights violations.

Next slide.

So what do we do with
material like human remains?

That is certainly going to
be interpreted negatively,

at least by some.

Although some of us may not
like the idea of plastination,

it seems to provide an avenue
to express strongly held beliefs

and fears about death.

In fact, it may
even alleviate fear

of being buried, anxiety
about the decaying process.

So in that sense,
it would seem to be

a useful and enabling process.

These aspects are
important and should not

be dismissed simply
as exhibitionism

on the part of the donors
or voyeurism on the part

of the exhibition visitors.

Censorship doesn't seem to
be quite the right answer,

but nor should it be
outright endorsement

when key ethical issues
have yet to be addressed.

Next slide.

Because I'm an anthropologist,
I, unfortunately,

know what troubled history
anthropology has had

with the use of human remains.

And I think,
actually, anthropology

may provide a
useful example here

in terms of how we
have dealt and we

continue to deal with
the use of human remains.

This is a picture of Ishi,
which just means man,

the last of the Yahi Indian.

He was the last wild
California Indian

who emerged from the wilderness
in Northern California

to end up in Alfred Kroeber's
and other scientists' hands

at the University of California
at Berkeley Department

of Anthropology, which,
curiously enough,

at the time was housed on
Parnassus Heights in San

Francisco.

And he was almost transformed
into a living exhibition

at some point.

But one of the things that
Ishi made very clear to Alfred

Kroeber was that he didn't
want to be cremated,

and from the conversations
that have been recorded,

he also probably didn't want
to have an autopsy carried out

on him.

But, in fact, that was
what happened to him.

And his brain, as a
result after the autopsy,

was taken and sent to the
Smithsonian Institution

by Alfred Kroeber himself.

The brain, however, went
missing almost right after that.

But it surfaced
again 80 years later,

and it has now been
repatriated under NAGPRA

to the Yaagna of Shasta
County and not the Maidu,

who had pressed for the
repatriation under NAGPRA.

I mentioned the example of
Ishi because it encapsulates

the violence of the new
scientific frontier, where

well-meaning
scientists could not

fulfill their friends' wishes.

Kroeber considered
Ishi a friend.

Ishi's brain is, in many
ways, like the organs

removed from the children at
Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool.

I don't know if you've heard
about the Alder Hey and Bristol

Royal Infirmary problems with
the procurement of children's

hearts.

It seems that these were
opportunities that were just

too good to pass for some
opportunism passing as science

because nobody's looking
or is asking questions.

Next slide.

Thanks.

So here are some consent
considerations in relation

to Body Worlds.

Body Worlds is the product
of activities carried out

at the Institute of Plastination
and affiliated institutions

by Gunther von Hagens
and his employees.

The picture that you see
on the left-hand side

is actually the Dalian
processing plant.

I couldn't find a picture of
the Institute of Plastination

in Heidelberg.

On the right is a picture of
Gunther von Hagens showing

his thespian inclination
in London, carrying out

public autopsy in 2002, I think.

Because the IFP, the Institute
for Plastination, and von Hagens

deal with human remains--

and human remains
are a substance

that is recognized as having
some kind of continuity

with the living person.

They should provide
assurances that bodies

are procured in an ethical way.

It's also important to know that
not all procured bodies become

part of the exhibitions,
but all procured bodies

pass through the Institute
for Plastination in Heidelberg

or the processing
plant in Dalian.

This has been confirmed to
me by Georgina Gomez, who

is the Body Worlds
representative in Los Angeles.

So to assess the ethical conduct
of body procurement activities,

Body Worlds, the exhibition,
cannot be examined

as a standalone operation,
but as one aspect of the IFP

plastination brief as a whole.

Next slide.

And this is the thing that you
see as you enter the exhibition

or as you open your exhibition
catalog, thanking the donors

for their generous gift.

Next slide.

And if you read on in
the exhibition catalog,

you come, on page 30, at least
in the fourth edition, which is

what I have, to this statement.

And I want to draw your
attention to the fact that--

it says that the
Institute for Plastination

also accepts donations
of bodies that have

been provided by survivors.

And this is a rather
unclear statement.

Unclaimed bodies
are also accepted

from government agencies,
such as the social welfare

office, and collections of
specimens that had already

been processed previously.

In some cases, they're
rather old collections.

If you've been to
the exhibition,

some of the fetuses that
you see in the exhibition

are from the very old
anatomical collections.

Next slide.

At the IFP, von Hagens has
established a donor program

that, like many other,
will-- body program

accepts these anatomical gift.

What is problematic
within this gift discourse

is the acceptance of unclaimed
bodies, who by definition are

donors, but without consent,
therefore making the whole idea

of donor rather questionable.

The BMJ, the British
Medical Journal, in 2003,

reported that von Hagens
was under investigation

for allegedly using bodies
without consent in connection

with the Plastination Research
Center at the Kyrgyzstan State

Medical Academy.

This is a picture of people
working on placentas in Bishkek

at the Kyrgyzstan
State Medical Academy.

And 200 bodies of
unexplained origin

were found at his
institute in Heidelberg,

and he was accused by a
Kyrgyz MP of having abducted

several hundred bodies
from former Soviet prison

hospitals, psychiatric asylums,
all this without consent.

These were the allegations
that were being made.

And obviously, all this
was done without consent.

Dr. von Hagens admitted
that he did not

know whether the families
of these individuals

had been informed.

And Kyrgyz officials,
at various levels--

and I have confirmation from
the sources that I've seen from

at least two individuals,
high-ranking individuals,

that confirmed that the
Kyrgyzstan Medical Academy was

exchanging staff and
materials with the Institute

for Plastination, which
sometimes they call the von

Hagens Clinic, which is, I
think it's fair to assume,

is the Institute
for Plastination,

and that a payment of 300,000
German marks had been made

for the shipment
of these bodies.

Next slide.

This gentleman is
Vladimir Novoselov.

He's the Chief of Regional
Forensic Medical Examination

Bureau in Novosibirsk,
in Siberia.

He was accused in
2001 of attempting

to ship about 50 unclaimed
corpses and about 400 brains

to the IFP in the fall of 2000.

He allegedly ordered
all city hospitals

to send all cadavers that had
not been autopsied or claimed

by their relatives to the
forensic lab, after which

the human remains were sent to
the Novosibirsk Medical Academy

morgue.

That was the entity that
had signed the agreement,

much like the academy
in Bishkek had

signed an agreement
with the Institute

for Plastination of
collaboration and exchange.

Under this agreement, the
Novosibirsk Medical Academy

would ship the unclaimed remains
to Germany as unnamed goods

and would receive back
the plastinated bodies

to be used in training.

However, after the
first shipment,

an investigation started.

And Mr. Novoselov was at first
acquitted at his first two

trials, but then when he
went to a superior court,

he was found guilty and
charged of abuse of authority.

Nobody else was charged.

He was fined the equivalent
amount of $1,000 US.

Next slide-- in 2005.

So there are two main
pendings, I think--

main questions pending
here for us in relation

to Body Worlds from
an ethics standpoint.

How do we consider bodies that
are a part of the von Hagens

brief, but they're not part
of this exhibition that's

here in Minneapolis
or other exhibitions?

What is the status of
unclaimed bodies at the IFP?

And does that even--
is that even relevant?

Does that say anything
about Gunther von Hagens

and whether his
practice is ethical?

How do we define
ethical in this case?

Should these bodies
be neglected by

the ethics advisory committees
because they're not visible?

What is the cost
of participating

in the scientific rhetoric
of gift and altruism

for our ethics institutions?

Which is probably one of
the most problematic parts

of all this.

Next slide.

So these exhibitions are
reshaping the social anatomy

of the body and the biopolitical
ground that it occupies.

One of the most problematic
aspects, I think,

of this-- and we can talk more
about this in the discussion--

is the way in which ethics
advisory committees have

been part of this
process, and they

have contributed to
the popularization

of the exhibitions
without really setting out

a process of a line of inquiry
for the procurement process,

but for the exhibition as a
whole, all of those dimensions.

The only report
that is available--

and you can find this on
the web is widely available.

Otherwise, you can contact
Georgina Gomez at the California

Science Center in Los Angeles.

There is a report that
the California Science

Center released
with information,

and it describes the ethics
review that was carried out.

As part of this review,
Hans-Martin Sass,

a bioethicist from,
I think, Georgetown--

is he at Georgetown?

I think he's at Georgetown now--

was sent to Heidelberg.

But from the report,
it only appears

that he went to Heidelberg, and
he matched the donor consents

with the death certificates.

There was no actual body count.

There was no sort of
reckoning between the body

inventory and the paperwork.

So a lot of the information
that is available

is contradictory in many
cases and inconclusive

in many other cases.

So I have no evidence that the
Body Worlds exhibition contains

any unclaimed bodies in
itself, this one or any other.

But there is also not
a very good record

that the process that
the IFP engages in

is well documented
in any way, just

even keeping an inventory,
which is something

that anatomical lab would
do as a matter of routine,

such as tagging
various specimens,

especially when they
become dismembered,

which makes it all more
difficult to keep track of them.

So ethics of whatever
sort I don't think

can hide behind these thin veils
of consent and gift economies.

And the public certainly cannot
make an informed decision about

going to see an exhibit and
participating in this process

unless the question of unclaimed
bodies is fully addressed.

Thank you.