the other side

Feburary 9, 2006

Basically it boils down to most every thing in life!

It's a matter of opinion.........that you and others wish to see this exhibit stoped and think its undignified.

I have seen this exhibit and plan to go again. It is very interesting and I would think anybody of the right mind would want to see what they "looked" like on the inside. It's truly amazing!!

I would donate my body for this if it didn't cost so much!

Try fighting against something that is hurting real people and quit wasting your time on this.

Suzie Warren

Princeton, IL.

January 26, 2007

I notice on your website that you have included NO positive comments. This

is quite surprising to me, and suggests that you are choosing to share the

comments that suit your own perspective.

Clearly, many, many people find these works fascinating and educational. To

respond to the doctor who said that, even in dissection, bodies are draped

to expose only the parts of interest, I disagree. My several experiences

with dissection would belie his assertion. HOWEVER, during anatomy

dissection classes, the donor body ALWAYS was treated with dignity, respect

and reverence for the supreme gift each individual made in the donation of

their remains for our learning opportunity.

In the same vein, as one who has been in private practice for nearly 20

years, I find the opportunity to study bodies in motion, particularly in

functional, everyday situations, to be extremely exciting and enlightening.

There is no horror, to me, in seeing a child atop an adult in the manner

described by one viewer. This is a natural and frequent occurrence in our

culture. Perhaps the "average man" viewing this arrangement might have an

opportunity to understand the stresses placed upon the adult's neck, and the

physician might note the altered biomechanics necessary to maintain an

upright posture in this pose. Perhaps, we, a nation of fast-developing

"vidiots", increasingly glued to VDTs and television, will have our eyes

opened once again to the amazing diversity of function that is "God-given"

in the structure of our physical form.

I think the analogies to Mengele are simply overreaching and inflammatory,

at best. On the other hand, if US port of entry customs officials required

proof of body acquisition in harmony with the world's Human Rights

Organization guidelines, that could put to rest any such questions of evil.

I will be viewing this exhibit tomorrow, with all due respect and reverence.

Joyce McClure D.C.

Portland, OR

December 17, 2006

To Whom It May Concern:

It is no secret that Renaissance masters Leonardo da Vinci and Michaelangelo drew from cadaver's

bodies. Where would the glory of the Sistene Chapel frescoes have otherwise come from? Leonardo's

anatomical drawings are today thought of as priceless examples of art-it's more than obvious as to their source.

When I was in art college-and studying to be a medical illustrator, to produce educational books for physicians, (who would go on to save countless numbers of human lives in the future)-I myself had to work with cadaver models.

I don't need to give any specific observations as to the conditions I had to work under-and the superior

degree of preservation and anatomical clarity found in the Body Worlds 2 exhibit; currently on display at Boston's Museum of Science.

The exhibit, particulary in it's advertising-leaves nothing to the imagination regarding its content. There is also more than adequate information in book form and on the internet itself. So why go in person to see the exhibit, when you can get "personally offended" before you pay the "pricey ticket price"?

Why play the arrogant role of self-appointed guardian of public taste and morality, and demand the closure of the exhibit for others-exerting your will and viewpoint for your own, self-stroking ego trip of righteous indignation?

Why not vent your rage about the hungry and the homeless instead?

Isn't a more vile desecration of the dead to shamelessly imagine for them that they are somehow now being

"taken advantage of", when it is common knowledge that they agreed of their own free will to the current

disposition of their remains while they were conscious, living individuals? The donation contract is right

up on the wall for all to see. After all-who do you think you're kidding?

Yes, I was at the current exhibition in Boston.

One of the most astonishing and ennobling occurances that I witnessed "first hand" was-mothers

and fathers-with their children (oftentimes younger than ten years old) viewing and commenting on the exhibit as they toured it together. I saw and heard no disgust, horror or revulsion-just calm, informative and, yes-loving dialouge between parent and child.

David Beynon

Weymouth, MA

November 30, 2006

This is an exhibit aimed at education about the human body that could serve as an inspiration to future doctors who will go on and save lives. I am an educator and advisor to health professions students. I want to donate my body to Body Worlds because I see the exhibit as an opportunity to continue to teach and hopefully inspire future health care workers and educators after I die. If people are that repulsed by the exhibit, then they can choose not to go, but don’t try and take away such a unique and awe inspiring exhibit and educational opportunity from the rest of us who thirst for knowledge about the human body.

Carol S. Weisse, Ph.D.

Director of Health Professions Program

Union College Bailey Hall 101

Schenectady, NY


October 3, 2006

The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago has had actual human fetuses in various stages of development stuck up on a wall for decades. Considering that those are poor, defenseless fetuses, not cognizant adults who intentionally donated their bodies to science, I would expect that you would be enraged about that.

Mummies, too, are human bodies. Should their display be prohibited?

Science is science. I look forward to seeing the exhibit. Is it perverse to want to know how one's own body works?

Steve Kennedy


I wish people would stop trying to impose their personal moralities on the public as a whole. To repeat a common theme: If you are offended do not go to see the exhibit, but do not have the arrogance to make what should be

my choice and my decision for me. I am a PhD student in Neuroscience and have spent much time learning my craft which has included dissections. There is no pseudoscience about this exhibit, it is what it is, anatomical preperations meant to interest and educate, and if a little sensationalism gets people interested in Science then great. It was only about 200 years ago that it was illegal for medical doctors to learn about the human body via dissections and medicine sorely suffered because of misguided morality. Anyone who has actually dissected a specimin of any kind knows how much reality differs from a model. Would you want to go to a surgeon who had no idea what an actual human chest looked like on a real human, would you trust yourself to someone who has only studied on a model or on a dog... I doubt it. Knowledge is not given, it is learned and earned. You mention dignity after death but I argue what is more dignified, educating

and increasing knowledge or being eaten by worms? These people have made a choice to willingly donate themselves for science, it is their choice, not yours to make. I hope that you and or any member of your family never needs to have a transplant using donated tissue or organs, because it seems that if you had your way that would also be considered undignified and immoral.

Stephanie Moeckel-Cole

University of Massachusetts/Amherst

September 20, 2006

My response: The above comment echoes some of the themes in the earlier comments below. Although the language is more polished, the substance is similar. I believe the exhibit is more about entertainment than about education. If professionals get their training in anatomy from body worlds, I would be very reluctant to entrust my body(or my soul) to them,dead or alive. There is more to a person than flesh and bones, and many physicians are aware of this. You will not find this out at body worlds. By the way, donating your body to body worlds is not the same as donating it to science.

The argument about imposing my opinion on the public can be easily stood on its head. One could just as easily maintain that the creator of body worlds, and the museums where it appears are trying to impose their version of morality on the public. And I don't think you will find that body worlds is able to acknowledge that Human Dignity exists...

Aaron Ginsburg


PLease...mind your own business.

If you are offended and dont want to see it - DON'T GO!

The people that donated their bodies are not being disrespected in any way.

Their unselfish donation is contributing to science, and the education of all who see this amazing exhibit.


My response: The exhibit has had a tremendous publicity blitz, and generated many approving comments. I am helping to give a voice to those who do not approve. Whether it is disrespectful or not is a matter of opinion that reasonable people may disagree about. The exhibit does not in any way contribute to science. It may have an educational aspect, but it still is an affront to human dignity. The education could have been accomplished by other means.

Aaron Ginsburg


Boston deserves better? Then maybe you should keep your puritan values to're only drawing attention to the exhibit. Poor you - you don't like it and damn it, you're going to do something about it, in the great tradition of some of the great Bostonian censors throughout history. You are the classic "fringe element". Sorry this stuff creeps you out, but why would your opinion override the public's ability to decide for themselves? Seriously. Why??

You come across as whiney and unemployed. You'll make a perfect condo association president someday when you retire to Boca...


My response: Mixed in with the indigation there is a good question here. Part of enabling the public to decide is informing the public that there is a something to make a decision about. This anonymous commenter seems to agree that there is something to make a decision about. I am merely giving the public some food for thought, which they are not getting at the exhibit. The commenter also seems to think that my tactics are drawing attention to the exhibit. The exhibit has a very effective publicity machine, and I doubt that this is the case. As far as the Puritan reference, the commenter is entitled to his opinion. I would prefer to think about myself in the tradition of some other famous rabblerousers from Boston. How do Sam Adams, John Adam, and Paul Revere sound?

Aaron Ginsburg


Well written.

I, however, actually have seen the exhibit, and although it is not for everyone, it was fascinating for me.

If you don’t like something that is shoved in your face, get angry, and I will help you push it away.

This is a PAID exhibit, not free, so to see this exhibit you need to make a conscious decision as an adult to see it.

I applaud your efforts to warn people that this is not the type of exhibit you may want to take your children to, or if you are queasy, but I do not agree with your efforts to stop the exhibit.

Keep up the good writing and the awareness,

(awaiting the author's permission to use his name)

My response: It is a pleasure to be able to respond to such a polite comment.

When you say "well written", I am not sure which page you are referring. I composed the opening page two months ago, and I find it very difficult to part with. I realized recently that it is rather vague about what my objection is, so I added an additional page to be more specific.

If your comment is based on my first page alone, I have not done a good job, actually. My objections have nothing to do with queasiness, and I also think the exhibit is fascinating...

In my opinion, I have merely tried to make people aware of one of the reasons that the exhibit is controversial. This is in response to the tremendous media blitz that was used to publicize the exhibit.

I am somewhat bemused at how an individual was able to break through to the media with comparatively little effort, and almost no expense(except time). I think the reason is because the media knew that the exhibit was controversial and appreiciated a voice to present the case. In effect, I stumbled on a cause in need of a voice. I came to this realization when I was interviewed by fox 25 news at 10. Fox 25 drove to my house at my convenience, and said thank you when leaving, as if I was doing them a favor.

I feel that I am doing the educating-the museum has tried very hard to avoid the issue I am presenting, but I have no problem with posting comments that do not agree with me. I would like to challange the Museum of Science to do the same.

Aaron Ginsburg