Controversy Over Body Worlds Exhibit
A few months ago, I heard of a science exhibit, “Body World”, featuring real human bodies that had been preserved by “plastination” of tissue. It was intriguing but I didn’t know very much about the exhibit or the process of preservation behind it. I enjoy museums and seeing demonstrations of natural phenomena; this was the first time I had learned of actual human bodies being used as the main centerpiece of a non-historical scientific exhibition.
The Body World exhibits have been a popular attraction to science learning all over the world. German anatomist Dr Gunther von Hagens has been a pioneer of the plastination technique to preserve human tissues since the 1970’s. Dr von Hagens’ work had been strongly maligned in the Western scientific community, prior to Body Worlds, as freakish and likened to the Nazi Josef Megele. But it would be wrong to equate Dr von Hagen, a scientist with a natural passion for his research with the evil of crimes against humanity. The only conflicts of interest I have found to be specifically against him are reports that he is selling a number of slices of human tissue to private collectors. This is a serious claim that damages Dr von Hagens’ image as a scientist always above a businessman.
The first Body Worlds was unveiled in Tokyo in 1995. Since the original exhibit, there have been more Body Worlds exhibits travelling all over the the world (Europe, Asia, North America). The exhibit is wildly successful and has had many copycat shows, mostly concentrated in China. Recently, though, the issue of the ethics in using human bodies for essentially entertainment purposes was brought to global attention. While it may create a point of interest in people from all walks of life in science and human anatomy, the exhibit inherently devalues human individuality and respect for the dead. The public does not attend science exhibits and museums only to learn but also, if not more so, to be entertained.
When a cadaver is used in scientific and medical dissection or studies, the body is used economically and sparingly by a select group. That body has either been consented, by the deceased individual or living guardians of the body, to be used in the interest of science. Following scientific testing and usage, the body is then disposed of in a manner that was (a) sanitary and (b)requested by the giver.
The bodies reserved and artistically rendered for the Body Worlds Exhibit were donated by the deceased person; however, there is controversy over the nature of the donation. Many of the bodies arrived from China and are suspected of being that of prisoners of war or executed people; an additional group that the bodies may have belonged to include those who handed over their remains for a monetary compensation. Imitation body exhibits in China are currently under fire for many cases of illegal body preservation without documented consent from the deceased. Such a grotesque example is found where bodies were being hoarded in a pit for sale to unscrupulous buyers. In this sense, it is possible that the taking of these bodies was to some degree unethical.
The artistic and functional needs of the Body Worlds exhibition required many of the donated bodies to even be dispersed over several exhibits. This means that “desirable” organs and other tissue from one body may be placed in conjunction with those of another person’s; very little is said about what is done with the leftover pieces of the body that aren’t usable. The body parts are then shipped around the world with the exhibition.
It may be that the people who donated their bodies to science wished that others may learn from their remains. It may also be that the donation of the body was totally legitimate and legal. However, it seems that the greater disturbance to those that dissent to Body Worlds exhibitions is the lack of reverence for the human body as an emblem — embodiment, if you will — of the of idea of the person. In presenting a body that is truly more entertainment than educational, the scientist has intrinsically ignored the beauty of life and diminished the death of the donator. There are more humane methods of helping the world to learn about science and our anatomy than to display glorified disrespect for the dead.
For people from many places around the world, the body is seen as a raw symbol of humanity, sex, beauty, and life. It is the tangible material of our intangible presence.
View the Second Part of this discussion [Controversy Over Body Worlds, cont'd -- posted April 8 2007] focused on the issue if practicality of Body Worlds to teach the public (Link)
——————————————————
EDIT:
In response to Madsilence’s comment:
I agree. I think to many people, it is a discovery of a new perspective on the body that is the most attractive. The media presents the body as ideally flawless. In models, the body appears as perfect as marble and glass.
These exhibits reveal to people the layers of the human composition. It is so real, so unabashedly raw that it draws the attention of people from all over. However, in showing this mechanistic view of a body, people forget about the individual.
(a) Did this person willingly donate their body without external pressure?
(b) Is the intent for large profit from a body, donated for the interest of science, ethical or a gross manipulation of trust?
(c) Does this exhibition dehumanize a person into a machine?
—>If so, is this ethical? ( Did the donator really want this to be done to his/her body, or did they want their body to be eventually disposed of in a customary fashion?)
Mummies are cool science and history exhibits. Body Worlds isn’t even mummies! Mummies were created to celebrate death as a part of a person’s life. Body Worlds-type exhibits strip the person of the identity of their life.
In response to Amberfireinus’s comments (quoted from my own response comment):
I think the general idea of using live models to create interest in the public is wonderful. The validity of the line between entertainment and educational interest is largely blurred in this case though. I can understand the view that seeing real human specimans allows people to have a better understanding of human variability and that no reproduction of tissue will ever capture the detail of the
real thing.
However, there are a few points that argue against:
(1) public interest as purely motivated by educational interest and
(2) the interests of involved scientists as purely to educate and inspire as desired by those to whom the bodies belong
Why do people visit these exhibits? Because it is a novel and astonishing experience to see what you (really) look like. It is definitely more interesting than any exhibit other I’ve ever heard about!
If I go, would I be looking at the body the same way I would look at the frog or cat I just dissected in a laboratory? I will not. The bodies are posed and displayed for as much aesthetics as to for scientific value {Ex: The statue of the skin-less man riding A skin-less horse}
Actually I’m not that bothered by this as much as the legal controversy either. The legal controversy really made me further question what seemed only a little eccentric before.
My wife & I have debated the appropriateness of these exhibits from their inception. There has been ongoing controversy, especially about the sources of the cadavers. The exhibits (there are several) have proven popular and are well-attended.
I’m not certain what aesthetic and pedagogic value these exhibitions provide. The art world and society don’t need this type of exhibition. We should let the dead rest in peace.
MadSilence
Thanks! I was surprised to hear about the legal discrepancies myself. I am glad people do have questioning minds, especially for such a popular idea.
I am not going to any of these exhibits.
I don’t mind about using bodies if they were donated appropriately. If I wanted to donate my body in a certain way, I wouldn’t want to think it was rejected because someone doesn’t agree with my choice. Specifically if the use isn’t an obvious attempt at being offensive.
Personally, if I die early I want my organs to save others and my shell to be burned away. Unless someone can make a creative puppet show with it.
I nearly went to see that exhibition when it was in Portland, OR. I ran out of time and I didn’t end up going. I had no idea that there was controversy regarding the bodies.
My thought process of the basic idea for the exhibit is: People don’t even begin to understand how amazing the human body is. The complexity of it. To be able to see the layers for themselves would be educational and eye opening. Entertainment? Hmm. Is biology and dissection in school entertaining?
A famous doctor was on the Oprah show several years back and he had human parts with him that were damaged by high blood pressure to show you what can happen to you. This wasn’t seen as entertainment, it was eductional. (I hate Oprah btw).
Anyhow, the point about the bodies not being appropriately obtained makes this exhibit a no go. You would think that the museums would have the integrity to make sure that these bodies were properly obtained in order to house the exhibit.
Pomdog — I think the same thing. The issue that’s coming to be asked, though, is whether these bodies were willingly donated or otherwise acquired (donated under financial pressure, not donated at all, or the bodies of prisoners and the executed)
Amberfireinus –I think the general idea of using live models to create interest in the public is wonderful. The validity of the line between entertainment and educational interest is largely blurred in this case though. I can understand the view that seeing real human specimans allows people to have a better understanding of human variability and that no reproduction of tissue will ever capture the detail of the
real thing.
However, there are a few points that argue against:
(1) public interest as purely motivated by educational interest and
(2) the interests of involved scientists as purely to educate and inspire as desired by those to whom the bodies belong
Why do people visit these exhibits? Because it is a novel and astonishing experience to see what you (really) look like. It is definitely more interesting than any exhibit other I’ve ever heard about!
If I go, would I be looking at the body the same way I would look at the frog or cat I just dissected in a laboratory? I will not. The bodies are posed and displayed for as much aesthetics as to for scientific value {Ex: The statue of the skin-less man riding A skin-less horse}
Actually I’m not that bothered by this as much as the legal controversy either. The legal controversy really made me further question what seemed only a little eccentric before.