![]() has subjected this work to increasing scrutiny, especially with respect to the actions of psychologist Suzanne Corkin, chief H.M. in much of the published literature)Īs we recently reported on AHP a new book on the infamous case study of H.M. Controversy Brewing over Suzanne Corkin and Patient H.M. The review is out from behind Science‘s paywall and can be read in full here. It is a pity, because his sense of personal grievance narrows him into a story about a uniquely menacing scientist rather than a universal story of the legal and institutional ties that bind even well-intentioned people. It helps make sense of his eagerness to see her actions as personal slights, character flaws, and bad science rather than symptoms of broken systems. ![]() But, while Dittrich is an exceptional writer, he focuses his talents in the last half of his book on a takedown of rival author Suzanne Corkin, missing opportunities to turn his own family story into one of more universal scope….ĭittrich only reveals at the end that Corkin was writing her own book on H.M., which recasts his story up to that point in a new light. ![]() ![]() ![]() It seems inevitable that the book will be compared to the patient biography The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. In her review, Laura Stark provides a welcome perspective on Dittrich’s work, especially in relation to his portrayal of Suzanne Corkin. As part of our continuing coverage of the controversy that has erupted over Luke Dittrich’s recently released Patient H.M., we bring to your attention a just released review of the book in Science. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |