FEMALE_1: Who made the decision

to change the presentation of

the exhibit when it came to
the United States and why?

FEMALE_2: I can't answer that
with a lot of authority.

Kirk actually was kind

enough to talk to a curator
at the science museum

who assured him as
I had suspected

that the show is
very much controlled

by the Body Worlds people.

I think that and

I also must say that I
only saw it in Berlin.

I've seen pictures
from other venues.

There may have been
some evolution during

the time it was going
through Europe,

but I know Germans

well enough to imagine
them sitting and saying,

what would appeal
to the Americans?

I think that the issues
here are the venues,

the fact that they were able to

get respectable prestigious
organizations to host it.

That, to my knowledge,

didn't happen so much in Europe.

Then, of course,
the press response,

which has been much more polite,

but that, on the other hand,
is an effect of I mean,

I think it all hangs together.

FEMALE_1: The question was,
if I heard you correctly,

what German institutions
could have hosted it

in something that would be more

analogous to how it was
hosted in the United States?

FEMALE_2: Well, certainly
there are art museums,

there are science
museums, et cetera.

I don't know about the
history of these decisions.

In fact, I never
even really thought

about it until I went to

the science museum
last week when

I wrote the essay in
the Star Tribune,

I had only seen the German one.

But I'm given the
huge controversy.

I mean, it had defenders.

In fact, at the German exhibit,

I bought a book called
Schoene Neue Koerper Welt and it's like

Brave New Body Worlds
that has 16 essays

by theologians and physicians

and sociologists
and people in law,

et cetera, that are debating

both a pro and con,
the whole thing.

It was surrounded by

an aura of controversy and
not everybody was against it,

but there was this huge tendency

to dismiss this as a charade.

I don't know for
sure if von Hagens,

for example, approached some of

these prestigious institutions
and was turned away.

I do know, and I
think this is part of

the capitalist brilliance of

the thing that he
has said repeatedly,

the more people criticize this,

the more they get outraged,

the more people will go ahead.

FEMALE_1: We all know that
old aphorism, don't we?

Has there been any medical
benefit from plastination?

Anybody want to
take that one on?

MALE_1: As it turns out, there's

a small plastination
operation at

the University of Minnesota in

which they take in general
particular organs.

If you were here, the
first discussion,

they had, for example,
a heart and a lung.

They had some of the
vascularization available.

It's used as a hands
on teaching tool.

Now, one thing that
is interesting

about it in this context
is that it's also

considered as a bequest organ

and that there isn't a right
to hold it in perpetuity.

It will be ultimately cared
for and will be disposed

of in the manner
that's consistent with

the anatomical bequest
program overall.

It's a temporary teaching
object and they brought

a number of these here
and you can look at them,

but yet they are tagged,
they are tracked,

and they do have a
deposition destination that

is already intended
and they're not

a property that can
be used in any way.

One thing that I noted with

the pen of the skier
on the lapel pin,

I wonder when that person gave

his body if he really
thought he was going to be

reproduced 50,000 times on

lapel pins out on
the ski slopes or

wherever and kitchart that thing

would not take place here,

while the particular technical
aspect of plastination,

in general using more of
a rubberizing element in

the polymers is used here for

the teaching purposes with
under the normal structure.

FEMALE_1: Relative to the
bodies that have been willed to

our anatomy program here
for learning and teaching,

that there's a very strong sense

of personhood and who these
persons were and that you

might even know them in
the anatomy lab and care

is taken ahead of
time so that students

don't walk in on a body that
is someone they may have

known and that you

didn't have that personal
sense or that sense

of selfhood or personhood
with the von Hagens exhibit.

Wondering whether any of
the panelists can speak to

that or had that same sense

or any thoughts
along those lines.

MALE_2: I would agree
with that, but I think

probably the reason is
the skin has taken off.

It's almost impossible to get

any recognition of the person

as we normally think of persons.

I agree with you

completely and I could not get

a sense of them as persons.

Then you have the
artificial eyes,

which makes them look
almost like circus things.

There's something very
artificial about them.

That also seemed to

me to give them an
artificial personality,

but not an individual
personality

of somebody I would have known.

MALE_1: One thing at

least in the anatomy
lab that I was in,

is that one develops
a relationship over

time with these people
and their bodies

and getting to know
the intricacies and

the idiosyncrasies of the
particular person that's there,

maybe you would go over
to another table where

this particular organ system
is more clearly articulated.

I remember one
woman at one table,

the way she happened
to be preserved,

that her hand was frequently
in the air like this,

and she had

extraordinarily clear
internal characteristics

still even after preservation,

which wasn't true in
many of the bodies.

Frequently you would
see the student

would be by there and
frequently the hand would be

up and one of the
students would be holding

the hand that happened

to be there just subconsciously
saying things like,

this woman is just incredible.

Look at this. There's a
sense of really owing,

and I think that was articulated

last week too in terms of

the memorial service
that's put on by

the medical students,
that there is a sense.

Then when you go and you

talk to the family
people that are there,

you don't know to
whom, which person,

which cadaver was
a family member,

but you're face to
face with them and

they know that you have
done certain things

with the body of the
people they love that

really puts an accountability
in the context,

which I don't think is
present in this situation.

FEMALE_1: I did something
new this year at

that memorial service
that I think will be

a tradition and it
was really striking.

They asked families to
bring in mementos and they

had a big long exhibit
table and there were

pictures of family members
or stuffed animals or

just the interesting things

that you might see
that people would

leave maybe at a gravesite or.

You had a sense of
who that person

was and it was really
meaningful and moving.

It was a wonderful idea.

Even though we didn't
or videotape last week,

we will be bringing those
presenters into the studio

and videotaping that session

for our educational
purposes in the future.

Just to let you all know
you could contact us in

the future if you
missed that session

or you know of people who
did or couldn't be here.

That same thing is true
of all of the sessions.