Why are plastic models a "poor substitute"?

Quite expensive plastic models are on the market--I think something else is up here (though I don't know what).

From Wired:

Some institutions have turned to plastic replicas. But artificial substitutes aren't ideal. "Plastic models are reproductions of a single specimen and don't include the range of variations found in real osteology," says Samuel Kennedy, who stocks the anatomy program at Harvard Medical School. Students trained on facsimiles never see these differences among individuals. Moreover, the models aren't entirely accurate. "The molding process doesn't capture the detail of a real specimen," Kennedy adds."This is especially critical in the skull."

Why are plastic models a "poor substitute"?

rob, are you angling for one of these for Christmas?

Thanks, Ennis!
Rahul, no Christmas chez rob, but--will keep it in mind for my birthday! ;-)

Last week Scott Carney broke the story of the human bone trade in West Bengal...

Plastic models are seen as a poor substitute... "Plastic models are reproductions of a single specimen and don't include the range of variations found in real osteology,"

I can just imagine a disillusioned Calcuttan teen idling away his summer skinny dipping in the local watering hole, who is pulled away by an eager, busybody Bengali uncle and advised, "I want to say one Bhird to you, son. Just one Bhird. Bhones." And therein lies a story.

How about covering the living Indians involved in medicine and science in the US??

The winner of the Siemens science project competition this year is an Indian girl ( a first!!), and I counted about five desis among the finalists.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2007/tc2007123_368568.htm?campaign_id=rss_tech

I remember there was once a gentleman in Kolkata who I heard of when I was about fifteen who either went by Konkal Sen or was referred to by that nickname,because he had made a substantial fortune supplying Desi Skeletons to medical establishments at home and abroad. Are they all grave robbed or are there people who can't afford cremation?

(I heard Meredith Viera pronouncing Kolkata today--"coal-cat-ah" she said-- quite novel, I thought.)

I named the skeleton in my high school anatomy class Vikram. Yes, I know it's not funny, but I had a darker sense of humor back then.

Once the body is dead it is like another piece of clay or mud. The problem is that normal people put too much value into a dead body. They want to give the dead person a religiously significant farewell by burying or cremating him.

But unless doctors have a chance to study the human body how can they learn about it. So for the development of medical science it is imperative that many human bodies and organs should be made available to medical students and scientists.

It is too bad that religious sentiments are allowed to come in the way of science.

The problem is that normal people put too much value into a dead body. They want to give the dead person a religiously significant farewell by burying or cremating him.

There is a certain value that needs to be acknowledged in mourning one's dead. While people can argue that scientists need medical training, it also should go without saying that a community should be able to determine its own rules for dealing with their dead. If people voluntarily donate their bodies to science then I don't see a problem. But what happens in Calcutta (and a lot of other places in India, I've recently discovered) is that people just go and dig up graves.

I don't think that criminals should be protected--even if at some point doctors get some educational benefit from the goods.

Grave robbery is wrong on several levels; you don't have to be religious to appreciate that.

Of course, our disrespect of the dead hasn't gone quite THIS far yet...

"However, stealing somebody’s bones is stealing their most personal property, and that’s just wrong."

This is quite convincingly true while you're alive, but a person cannot possess property, personal or otherwise, when they're dead. It is, at worst, a theological question; at best its a way for some people to make a living who might otherwise be breaking their own bones to do it.

Imperious Caesar, dead and turned to clay, might stop a hole to keep the wind away.

"It is, at worst, a theological question; at best its a way for some people to make a living who might otherwise be breaking their own bones to do it."

I disagree that it is a theological question. I think it is a lot deeper than that. At least a cultural question, or an emotional one. For instance: lets say your spouse or child dies. It's tragic. You are very upset. Not just for theological reasons, but because you have had a great loss. What would you do if the day after that person is buried someone digs up their body, rips all the flesh off of it and sells it to a foreigner? The only bones that have any value are the ones that are fresh -- in the last month at the longest. These aren't anonymous bodies. And no one gave medical companies permission to dig them up.

My guess is that you would be pretty upset. But if you really think you wouldn't be then maybe you have a point.

Welcome, Scott! It's always great to have the author of the piece show up in the comments.

This is quite convincingly true while you're alive, but a person cannot possess property, personal or otherwise, when they're dead. It is, at worst, a theological question; at best its a way for some people to make a living who might otherwise be breaking their own bones to do it.

No, but he or she can pass it on to their heirs. Unless you want to argue that somebody's estate becomes fair play to scavengers the minute they die, in which case the Ambanis better watch out, that's a lot of assets up for grabs at some point.

doesnt the practice of cremations in india make bones harder to come by there than the west? I think most people in the west just bury the bodies? no?

doesnt the practice of cremations in india make bones harder to come by there than the west? I think most people in the west just bury the bodies? no?

Yes, but there are laws in the US that strongly penalize grave robbing, and they are enforced unlike in India.

That does raise another issue though. Do people not care this is going on because those are Muslim bones?

Puliogre in da USA doesnt the practice of cremations in india make bones harder to come by there than the west? I think most people in the west just bury the bodies? no?

Indian grave robbers tend to steal the bones of the dead. American grave robbers prefer to jump the bones of the dead :-)

Do people not care this is going on because those are Muslim bones?

I think that's probably stretching it. The predominant factor here might be class rather than religion. After all, it's the poor whose graveyards are probably less protected and easy to raid. Grave robbery for medical reasons has gone on for time immemorial (at least since the middle ages). The most prominent examples that I can think of are Vesalius and, I also believe, Huxley, who both contributed to advances in our understanding of blood circulation.

doesnt the practice of cremations in india make bones harder to come by there than the west? I think most people in the west just bury the bodies? no?

Actually, no. A lot of the bones at the bone factory I visited came from a burning ghat frequented by poor Hindus. If you are very poor then the cost of firewood (up to 2000 rupees) is just unfordable. So the caretaker puts some ghee in the body's mouth and lights it on fire. Then they dump the body right into the river. Then the family leaves. And then the bone collectors have a fresh body to deflesh. In fact, Mukti Biswas ran one the most popular cremation ghat in town.

Indian grave robbers tend to steal the bones of the dead. American grave robbers prefer to jump the bones of the dead :-)

wow...trolling the OBITUARIES for grls...thats got to be a first.

That does raise another issue though. Do people not care this is going on because those are Muslim bones?

I wasn't going to say that. Now that you've broken through, Ennis, I think in a society where cremation prevails, most people don't see the body of the deceased the way you do, Scott, particularly since most can also be pretty sure it's not their relative. But clearly, the people who actually do bury their dead do feel the same kind of attachment as Scott does, or similar, to the dead body.

Actually, no. A lot of the bones at the bone factory I visited came from a burning ghat frequented by poor Hindus. If you are very poor then the cost of firewood (up to 2000 rupees) is just unfordable. So the caretaker puts some ghee in the body's mouth and lights it on fire. Then they dump the body right into the river. Then the family leaves. And then the bone collectors have a fresh body to deflesh. In fact, Mukti Biswas ran one the most popular cremation ghat in town

thats depressing.isnt there some more secure place to put the body instead of a river? Is it theft at that point?

I wasn't going to say that. Now that you've broken through, Ennis, I think in a society where cremation prevails, most people don't see the body of the deceased the way you do, Scott, particularly since most can also be pretty sure it's not their relative. But clearly, the people who actually do bury their dead do feel the same kind of attachment as Scott does, or similar, to the dead body.

Why weren't you going to say it about those Muslims? You went plenty of other places with your contribution to this thread. And spare us the high-minded language of "no attachment"-- there's plenty of attachment to a body especially when you're responsible for cremating it. It's not firewood you're burning, it's your parent.

I'm also baffled by this: "most people don't see it the way you do SCOTT". This isn't about Scott. There are plenty of people all over the world, yes, even desi, who would see it the way "Scott does". I'm sure those poor Hindus who left their beloved family members in the river don't mind that they were flayed just after right? Since they don't feel the same kind of attachment that "Scott does"? Your comment was offensive, condescending and worst of all, wrong.

Vesalius and, I also believe, Huxley,

I meant William Harvey.

thats depressing.isnt there some more secure place to put the body instead of a river? Is it theft at that point?

Who needs a secure place? This is an opportunity to practice detachment!

Who needs a secure place? This is an opportunity to practice detachment!

vulture, amma....amma, vulture. why dont you two get aquainted?

vulture, amma....amma, vulture. why dont you two get aquainted?

Puli, are you Parsi?

Personally, I find it hard to get exercised about the issue, and it has nothing to do with the fact that I was born in a Hindu family, but rather with my materialistic, atheistic conception of things. I also find the entire routine of ceremonies for 13 days, usually involving fattening the stomachs and pockets of some uninvolved and rather mercenary priests quite distasteful.

But I can understand how the issue of defilement of the deceased can touch a raw nerve (in the living, the dead don't have raw nerves after all).

There is a cult in India which practices necrophilia. They dig up the graves and have sex with the dead women. If I remember correctly, they are called Agoras.

Once the body is dead it is like another piece of clay or mud. The problem is that normal people put too much value into a dead body. They want to give the dead person a religiously significant farewell by burying or cremating him.

For those who follow certain religions, there is value in bodies, or at least a desire to respect them. I really hope all of us remember that Christian and Muslim mutineers might find this thread uncomfortable, depending on where we allow it to go. I had two relatives die within a month of each other, exactly a year ago, so they are on my mind...and as a normal person, I am queasy about some of the sentiments being expressed here. My larger point is applicable to every thread, on every blog-- be kind and sensitive with your words, since they impact more people than you realize.

But unless doctors have a chance to study the human body how can they learn about it. So for the development of medical science it is imperative that many human bodies and organs should be made available to medical students and scientists.

It is too bad that religious sentiments are allowed to come in the way of science.

Again, a cautionary plea- science being superior to religion, combined with a thread about grave robbing and how perhaps it shouldn't be a big deal...combustible. I'm not saying you should censor yourselves, I'm just saying to tread gently. More people lurk here than comment. If one of them buried a family member last week, that statement could hurt.

im an atheist, and i still would go livid if someone stole my parents bodies. its not theirs to take. people of any religious background should recognize theft when they see it.

There is a cult in India which practices necrophilia. They dig up the graves and have sex with the dead women. If I remember correctly, they are called Agoras.

I was aware that Aghoris practiced cannibalism, but not about necrophilia. Although since defying boundaries and embracing the macabre is central to their belief systems, I guess it is possible.

Aghori...though a cursory glance mentioned necrophagy vs. philia.

When SM was just a wee litte tyke, Abhi wrote a very interesting post about an American Aghori.

Aghori = gruesome in Marathi

I eagerly await the insights of Pardesi Aghori on this custom.

In colonial times, British doctors hired thieves to dig up bodies from Indian cemeteries. Despite changes in laws, a similar process is going strong today. Throughout parts of Calcutta, many of the cemeteries have been empty for generations.

How widely known is this? I'm surprised that nobody has tried to grab this land for property development yet, what with the price of real estate in Indian cities and all.

But then there's the whole thing about "This hotel was built on an Indian burial ground", which if Overlooked might contribute to making Jack a dull boy.

I'm surprised that nobody has tried to grab this land for property development yet, what with the price of real estate in Indian cities and all.

I'm no expert on Indian real estate, but I'd wager that the total amount of land occupied by temples and cemeteries/graveyards is monotonically non-decreasing over time.

Why weren't you going to say it about those Muslims? You went plenty of other places with your contribution to this thread. And spare us the high-minded language of "no attachment"-- there's plenty of attachment to a body especially when you're responsible for cremating it. It's not firewood you're burning, it's your parent.

I'm also baffled by this: "most people don't see it the way you do SCOTT". This isn't about Scott. There are plenty of people all over the world, yes, even desi, who would see it the way "Scott does". I'm sure those poor Hindus who left their beloved family members in the river don't mind that they were flayed just after right? Since they don't feel the same kind of attachment that "Scott does"? Your comment was offensive, condescending and worst of all, wrong.

Because, pondatti, as Anna ays, it's inflammatory-- incendiary. You are putting words and emphases in my mouth, for example, and your language is pretty inflammatory, so you have an answer right there. Anyway, as Scott noted, many of the bones come from burning ghats, so this argument that you want to start may lead nowhere except flames. I was addressing Scott in his role as a poster on this thread, as I was also addressing Ennis. What is done with bodies after death is based in religion but is also culturally embedded, so that people who are accustomed to different practices should be expected to approach this topic with different assumptions. In families that are accustomed to burial and more recently have turned to cremation, it's a matter of choice whether to keep the ashes in an urn, or bury them or scatter them according to the wishes of the deceased. For people who themselves expect to be cremated and their ashes scattered in water as a matter of course, because of equally long established practice, those choices do not arise, because the body and its location are not venerated into the future. There may be a wide range of different values people are inculcated with, but it's important to distinguish what is wrong from what are expectations based on cultural assumptions.

reminds me of this movie: "The Body Snatcher" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037549/ - based on R.L. Stevenson story.

"So for the development of medical science it is imperative that many human bodies and organs should be made available to medical students and scientists."

- yes, but made available by choice, not force/stealing. and as usual, it's the poor who offer up their loved ones involuntarily (although alastair cook's remains were also stolen). but that brings up the ethical question - how long is appropriate? after a suitable amount of time, it's called archaeology (which is fascinating).

the total amount of land occupied by temples and cemeteries/graveyards

Can't say much about cemeteries, except I do know a few which recycle their plots by moving the old bodies into crypts after a few years. Temples are a different story - they used to sprout up all over the place around Madras when the East Coast Road and Outer Ring Road were being made, solely so that the landowner could point to it and say "Look! Temple! Shiny! Can't demolish! Can't build road through my backyard! Ha ha ha ha ha!". I don't know what's become of these temples of convenience.

But unless doctors have a chance to study the human body how can they learn about it. So for the development of medical science it is imperative that many human bodies and organs should be made available to medical students and scientists.

Here's a simple solution - most people know they want to go to medical school pretty early on. So, when someone in the family of the doctor-wannabe dies, save his/her body (bodies) and bring it (them) to the medical school for dissection and learning. Parents save money for their kids to go to college - just add a body of a dead relative to the list too. Problem solved, no?

Parents save money for their kids to go to college - just add a body of a dead relative to the list too.

Why limit yourself to dead relatives?

"Indian authorities express a similar lack of concern. Although the international bone trade violates the national export law and local statutes against grave desecration, officials look the other way.”This is not a new thing,” says Rajeev Kumar, West Bengal’s deputy inspector general of police…”We are trying to implement the law based on the stress society places on it,” he adds. “Society does not see this as a very serious thing…” "

I wonder if Indian authorities would express a similar lack of concern if the bone stealing was occurring for individuals from more wealthy backgrounds. Though from an economic standpoint it wouldn't make sense for the bone stealers to pilfer from this more difficult source, I bet that if the bones of deceased relatives of politicians / businessmen were at issue then in the eyes of authorities, society would begin to see this as a more serious thing........

What is done with bodies after death is based in religion but is also culturally embedded, so that people who are accustomed to different practices should be expected to approach this topic with different assumptions. In families that are accustomed to burial and more recently have turned to cremation, it's a matter of choice whether to keep the ashes in an urn, or bury them or scatter them according to the wishes of the deceased. For people who themselves expect to be cremated and their ashes scattered in water as a matter of course, because of equally long established practice, those choices do not arise, because the body and its location are not venerated into the future.

You're right that different people place different sorts of value on dead bodies and desecration of corpses. However, in any tradition, people want to control the disposition of the body. If a family believes they are cremating the body they would be distressed if it were to be snatched and sold in the incinerator. If a family thinks they are leaving the body in the Ganga, they will be upset if it is snatched away and sold by somebody else.

If what you are saying is really true, then it would be easy enough for these companies to buy bodies directly from the families of the deceased. The fact that they do not indicates that these families would not be willing to sell them.

Personally, I'm not so concerned with the status of my body after I die, but I damn well want to control it or have my estate do so. It's not a bit of stray salvage. If I want to sell my body to med students, I'll damn well do so myself and have my estate pocket the proceeds rather than some middle man.

I'm not so concerned with the status of my body after I die, but I damn well want to control it or have my estate do so. It's not a bit of stray salvage. If I want to sell my body to med students, I'll damn well do so myself and have my estate pocket the proceeds rather than some middle man.

Then I would suggest not being buried in Calcutta. Or the surrounding villages.

On a related note, have you ever wondered why Christian graveyards in India always have huge cement blocks over the grave? Everywhere else in the world people just put a headstone and then bury the body. The tradition of cement tombs above the grave is popular in India because so many bodies were being stolen. This was the solution they came up with.

I think you've pinned it down, Ennis. I don't think the objectives of scientific research supersede these ethical considerations, so my next question is, what about people in the West who expect the kind of treatment you outlined above for bodies of the deceased in their own society, but who provide a market for Indian skeletons, and defend their choice without reproach?

Parents save money for their kids to go to college - just add a body of a dead relative to the list too. Problem solved, no?

Why limit yourself to dead relatives?

Gives BYOB a whole new meaning. :D

That does raise another issue though. Do people not care this is going on because those are Muslim bones

Trolling on your own blog? Is it that hard to figure out that people who dig up bones illegally most likely wouldn't care about religion no matter what religion it is? Besides, Europe too has a history of digging up bones in a variety of contexts. Check out the catacombs when you're in Paris or Rome next. Pretty cool actually and an excellent use of bones.

I agree with the comment above that this is not necessarily a theological issue. People feel the need to honor and solemnenize certain events in a human life, and death is pretty much one of the biggest of these. I wish religionists wouldn't feel it's only their sentiments that are always at stake. There's a lot of solace in ritual and ceremony and one doesnt need to care two hoots about theology in order to find it.

Then I would suggest not being buried in Calcutta. Or the surrounding villages.

On a related note, have you ever wondered why Christian graveyards in India always have huge cement blocks over the grave? Everywhere else in the world people just put a headstone and then bury the body. The tradition of cement tombs above the grave is popular in India because so many bodies were being stolen. This was the solution they came up with.

It's also because the muggy climate and alluvial soil, say in and around Kolkata, is one step from swamp, not the best environment for graveyards-- bodies might not stay so reliably put in one place six feet under, or decay so slowly and give off as low emissions as at, say, Woodlawn. I think your conclusion is wrong, Scott. The British built themselves mini Mughal tombs in the Park Street Cemetery, still there since Regency times, and Woodlawn is also full of massive structures built over the relatively recent dead. It's what people can afford too. And it's not Christian per se, think Taj Mahal.

Dear Divya,

You said:

Trolling on your own blog? Is it that hard to figure out that people who dig up bones illegally most likely wouldn't care about religion no matter what religion it is?

Please read the post:

Indian authorities express a similar lack of concern. Although the international bone trade violates the national export law and local statutes against grave desecration, officials look the other way.”This is not a new thing,” says Rajeev Kumar, West Bengal’s deputy inspector general of police…”We are trying to implement the law based on the stress society places on it,” he adds. “Society does not see this as a very serious thing…”

I'm not talking about the grave diggers, I'm talking about everybody else, hence the quote from the story. There isn't any ambiguity about my intent, despite your attempts at misdirection.

People do not care very much, neither the mass public nor the bureaucrats. This story got no coverage in the Indian media at all, a good indication that the readership didn't care. The police tend to act only if they are concerned there have been killings. They have explicitly said that this is a low priority for them and that they are taking their cues from elsewhere.

Scott clarified, in response to my question, that these are not just Muslim bones but also the bones of poor Hindus. It still makes me suspect that people don't care because the people who read the newspapers and run the government are not the same people whose bones are being stolen.

Besides, Europe too has a history of digging up bones in a variety of contexts.

Yes, and it is also punished harshly which is precisely why the bone trade moved to India.

This issue is a lot more serious than some people realise. I watched a program on National Geographic on this some time back. Bones are useful not only to medical students, but also to cure a variety of problems - like replacing spinal discs, knee joints etc. So they have enormous commercial value.

My concern is how far this thing can go if unchecked. Grave robbery is bad enough and raises a lot of questions on ethics, sentiments etc. But that is just the beginning. If bones are to be used in humans, they need to be tested to make sure they are free from AIDS and a whole host of other diseases. It is expensive to do that on every bone you exhume. My worry is that crime may increase - after all, it is much easier to find a healthy, living person and kill them off for their bones.Given that we take years to settle every single suit in India, and given the attitude of our police (based on the post), this is really worrying. The article already talks about the killing of children...where will this all lead to?

I think your conclusion is wrong, Scott. The British built themselves mini Mughal tombs in the Park Street Cemetery, still there since Regency times, and Woodlawn is also full of massive structures built over the relatively recent dead.

You may be right. But they definitely serve a dual purpose. I've heard a story that before she died Mother Teresa said that she wanted to be buried in a tomb, because "we all know what happens in the graveyards of Calcutta." I don't know if it's true, but its a saying that is pretty popular in Calcutta.

where will this all lead to?

The end of Kalyug, and arrival of Kalki..perhaps?
/tongue-firmly-in-cheek

Ennis, thanks for the clarification but I'm sorry I strongly feel that was an uncalled for comment. As for the rest of it, I suppose it must be the culture gap at work. For those of us who grew up in India, it would make big news if officials stopped "looking the other way" and actually did what they were supposed to do. And not to sound troll-like myself, but among all of the things that need fixing in India I find it unsurprising that this is not on anyone's priority list (unless they're actually killing people for their bones).

My comment about the European catacombs was meant to illustrate that it's sometimes okay to shuffle bones around or use them otherwise. Imo, civic needs trump family sentiments (after a few generations).

I eagerly await the insights of Pardesi Aghori on this custom.

:-)

For those of us who grew up in India, it would make big news if officials stopped "looking the other way" and actually did what they were supposed to do. And not to sound troll-like myself, but among all of the things that need fixing in India I find it unsurprising that this is not on anyone's priority list (unless they're actually killing people for their bones).

Ah, but now you're agreeing that it's not an issue that either the masses or the bureaucrats care about.

I think there are good reasons why the police should care. For one thing, it's a major health hazard. In another part of the article, they talked about the stench being so strong that you could smell it a mile away. Plenty of things smell in India, but the smell of rotting human flesh is a horrible one.

I raised the question about whether it mattered whose bones these were for a serious reason, not to troll. Clearly people don't care very much right now. However, imagine that these were bones being stolen from funeral pyres for families of police, politicians, or major businessmen. I'd imagine it would hit home a bit more then. I'm not trying to stoke communal sentiments, but in a stratified society it's not a surprise that some things matter more than others.

Hey Scott, I thought your last paragraph brought it home in terms of people in other countries ordering skeletons and not bothering much about their source. What about within India? Were you able to contact Indian med schools about who their sources are?

European catacombs was meant to illustrate that it's sometimes okay to shuffle bones around or use them otherwise

Money rules. The FDA turns a blind-eye and tweaks its neck in another direction. Legislators succumb to the power brokers. Families and the dearly departed believe they are selfless contributors to the betterment of science and humankind. But, the truth more often than most of us are willing to acknowledge, is that they are being duped.

then there was the story about people's bones being stolen and replaced with pipes and such.

Assigning blame is not just about who's supplying this but also about where the demand's from.

Ennis:

It still makes me suspect that people don't care because the people who read the newspapers and run the government are not the same people whose bones are being stolen.

From the article:

The police took an interest in Biswas only because the bodies of a few important people went missing.

here you go

A New York district attorney has indicted Michael Mastromarino, the owner of New Jersey-based Biomedical Tissue Services Company, and three other employees of the company on 122 charges ghoulish crimes that include taking body parts from cadavers in funeral homes without legal consent and without screening for disease. In some cases the dead person's bones were replaced with PVC plastic plumbing pipe, so the absence of bones would not be noticed when the bodies were viewed at funeral home

I don't think our indifference stems from communal or class issues. We Indians are just too fatalistic, too numb, too cynical. We have seen it all and nothing would surprise us any more. There is so much that is wrong that we just give up.

Ennis - I agree this should be taken seriously. In fact it's good to have an unjaded perspective. I still remain unconvinced however that whose bones they are could ever be an issue in this particular game - thanks for sharing your views all the same.

Woodlawn
Pere Lachaise
Forest Lawn

I'm really getting into this. Scott, you are sporting!

You may be right. But they definitely serve a dual purpose. I've heard a story that before she died Mother Teresa said that she wanted to be buried in a tomb, because "we all know what happens in the graveyards of Calcutta." I don't know if it's true, but its a saying that is pretty popular in Calcutta.

I think that's true everywhere, the dual purpose that revolves, if you will, around protecting valued remains, or Napoleon's very ashes wouldn't be at Les Invalides and, contrariwise, the Bolsheviks wouldn't have hidden the bodies of Tsar Nicholas and f'ly so mysteriously. Of course the real estate etc. presupposes the cultural importance of keeping the body and its whereabouts preserved long after death. That's a totally climate dependent idea, but consider this. If some people can only afford a spoon of ghee in the mouth and others can afford a piece of earth in perpetuity, what does that signify in terms of their relative means?

If Mother Teresa actually said that I'd be very much surprised and bothered, as it would run counter to her professed humility. Did you know she was originally a Loreto nun, and that the Little Sisters of the Poor wear the uniform blue and white striped saris that the ayahs of the Loreto order wear? I've always thought that that's Mother Teresa's answer to the (possibly perceived) snobberies of the Loreto Order. Mother Teresa was very much a Kolkiata socialist/communist, in her very own way.

Hey Scott, I thought your last paragraph brought it home in terms of people in other countries ordering skeletons and not bothering much about their source. What about within India? Were you able to contact Indian med schools about who their sources are?

Most of the skeletons prepared by Young Brothers are for domestic consumption and study. I don't know if Young Brothers still exports bones, the best I could discover with the leads I had was that the bones filter through a string of middle men. YB stopped admitting to exporting bones around 2001 when they were busted by the MLA Javed Ahmed Khan.

But the rest of the bones--thousands of skeletons--are used by medical students and doctors. While many medical students can't afford a properly prepared skeleton that retails for upwards of 20k rupees, they can afford one that is dug up from an old grave and not prepared very well. In the areas around medical schools it is still very common to find grave yard workers who will offer to dig up an old body for as little as 200 rupees. Or at least that is what local doctors and recent med school grads tell me.

If some people can only afford a spoon of ghee in the mouth and others can afford a piece of earth in perpetuity, what does that signify in terms of their relative means?

It signifies that some people are very poor in India. Others have a lot of power. That isn't exactly a new story though. In fact, versions of that story are told in every country in the world.

It signifies that some people are very poor in India. Others have a lot of power. That isn't exactly a new story though. In fact, versions of that story are told in every country in the world.

Is that all it tells you?

Is that all it tells you?

The issue is so big that what else can I say about it?

It still makes me suspect that people don't care because the people who read the newspapers and run the government are not the same people whose bones are being stolen.

It would be quite a feat if the opposite were the case. Heck, some people can barely walk and chew gum at the same time, forget administering an entire country while being deboned.

Wise minds of Sepia, I ask you: Which merits more offense, cradle robbing or grave robbing?

Make no bones about it - the authorities are not taking this situation gravely..

Well,
Just to add my two paisas
I studied in a Med school (college!) in India. My Med School had a designated area where bodies would be buried, then exhumed after a few months to be converted into 'bone sets'. 3 people shared a bone set.If the topic under study was,say the inferior extremity, one would take the pelvis, the other the femur etc..We were supposed to return the sets at the end of our anatomy course,but many did not.I, for one, returned everything except the skull of my dear mentor 'Bhaskar'.Also,many students procured shiny, anatomically labelled bone sets from Punjab, their source a well kept secret.At the time,they were available for 5000 rupees in the underground market. There were plenty of dissection cadavers as well, shared between 6 people. A few people in every batch got nicknamed 'caddie' for their close resemblance to object of their dissection. Whenever we made inquiries about the source of the bodies, we were told that they were unclaimed bodies, especially from mental institutions. To be frank that does sound like a very plausible explanation. I don't know what the law of the land is in this matter,however.

Henry Gray's comment (presumably the handle refers to this) made me wonder about the 'demand side' of all of this disgusting practice. So this is a question to all the health professionals here on SM.

Why would a scale model of the bones in the human body (plastic, plaster, ceramic, or any other suitable material) not be good enough for instructional purposes and for 'up close' learning? This can be supplemented by one or two 'real bone sets' in the entire medical school for everyone to see, and of course the cadaver dissections would provide more 'up close' interaction. Why do medical students feel the need to have their own, 'real bone sets'?

I understand there is considerable variation in bone size and density between people in general, between kids and adults, male and female, and between the 'races' - but the basic bone structure is shared across the species. So I can imagine the basic variations - kids, adults, male, female, heavy set person, skinny person, and European, African, Asian, Indian, etc - being made into scale models, then mass produced, and used by medical students. On the other hand, wouldn't there actually be a greater chance that the full variation of the bone structure in the human species will not be manifest when the student has their 'own bones' and moreover, when bones from only one area of the world are used in instruction, as would be the case if they are mostly from Kolkata, or even mostly from India?

The answer would be relevant because I'd guess this business is totally demand-driven. To curb the business, it is demand that would have to be addressed, not the supply - that is, going after the Young Brothers of the world will not work as long as med schools and students want the 'real thing'.

The issue is so big that what else can I say about it?

A lot of things occur to me-- the poorer you are, the less control you have over what will be done with your bod, but rich people get to be fully cremated or lovingly buried.

My daughter is busy writing a paper contrasting an Italian family crypt that is open to the public with the Bodies Exhibition still showing in NYC and SF. And this is purely coincidental.

Does having to save for your grave force you to accumulate capital in life?

Is dying poor more green?

Wasn't Mozart really buried in a heap with others?

Actually I wonder whose bones are these ? As far as I know amongst the Hindus, if you follow the right procedure of cremation, you come back the next day and collect the ashes to disperse it in the ocean/river. Excepting for the people residing near the Ganges I am not sure whether majority of the Hindus cremate near river-banks.

Having attended a medical school in america, I can tell you that at my school, we each got a "bone set" to study from that we returned at the end of the year - i.e. there is not much demand for fresh bones since the same set is going to be used by the next class and so on.
Also, one commenter mentioned the value of "fresh" bones - I have never heard of this, and I'm pretty certain the bone set I studied from wasn't that fresh, yet I managed to learn from it just fine. As for plastic, I guess nobody really wants doctors to learn on fake models - otherwise we'll soon be dissecting and practicing surgery on plastic bodies as well.

I studied in a Med school (college!) in India. My Med School had a designated area where bodies would be buried, then exhumed after a few months to be converted into 'bone sets'.

Dear Dr.Henry Gray,

Can we talk some time? I'm thinking of doing some follow up research for a documentary and would love to get some more information. My e-mail is sgcarney AT gmail.com

best,

scott carney

I guess concepts like reincarnation, where the dead body is not seen as important as a persons soul, might play a part in Indian society's indifference. Where as societies that believe in resurrection of the dead would consider the dead body important as it shall reunite with the soul.

"As for plastic, I guess nobody really wants doctors to learn on fake models - otherwise we'll soon be dissecting and practicing surgery on plastic bodies as well."

It's already been done. See this link.

Perhaps if the fact that you can make money out of this can be publicised, people will be more willing to simply donate their bodies once they are dead rather than having their graves stolen. Ofcourse, there is then the problem that only people in need of money would go for it, running into the class issue...

On what authority does Scott Carney blithely report "for 200 years", and "British doctors hired thieves to dig up bodies from Indian cemeteries"? In the space of one paragraph Carney has managed to turn this non-story into a suggestion of a Western conspiracy against Indians. Replace 200 with 'N', British with 'X', and Indian with 'Y' and you might be closer to the sordid truth. I think it is far too easy for the Carneys of the West to go to India for their stories rather than to the Congo, say.
Encouraging outrage by concocting a slant is a cheap way of developing interest in a story. Doesn't anyone have an ounce of skepticism any more? This stuff has been going on throughout the world ever since there has been the empirical study of anatomy. Carney is pandering to our gullibility, and we are only too glad, predictably, to see this as them-against-us. If India is truly the major source for specimen skeletons, perhaps we should be looking at ourselves much more cynically.
It took me a while to remember where I had first heard of grave-robbing for the needs of anatomists. Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities" has a character named Jerry Cruncher, an odd-job man who augments his income by plying the occasional trade of "resurrection man". I don't know if Dickens coined the term himself, or if the term was in use in his day. Given Dickens' reputation as a social historian I am willing to accept that this was a well known (if sub-rosa) trade in England. Carney's "200 years" suggests that Jerry Cruncher's moonlighting was being threatened by outsourcing!
In the past couple of years there have been at least two infamous cases in the US of the body parts trade and grave desecration for profit, and both of them have showed up on "Law and Order" as "fiction". So 'X' and 'X' also works for me.

P.S. > Carney's comments on this blog are vapid, speculative, unknowledgeable, unprincipled and unethical. To me at least, he has no credulity as a journalist.
11. "and a lot of other places in India, I've discovered recently" - unsubstantiated
"people just go and dig up graves" - hyperbolic, a wild-ass claim
"I don't think that criminals should be protected" - childish
14 & 20 This is a journalist writing?!
"puts some ghee in the body's mouth and lights it on fire" - exaggeration
45. Highly speculative and illogical
"Everywhere else in the world people just put a headstone and then bury the body" - The man has an extremely limited knowledge of burial practices over the world including Christian countries.
52. How stupid can this get? Why bring Mother Teresa into it? Perhaps she was thinking of headstone tipping. Perhaps people go to Calcutta graveyards to make love, to defecate, to urinate, to masturbate; the possibilities are endless, but Carney uses her to bolster his story.
64. "domestic consumption" -- surely you jest! Latinate idiocy.
The second paragraph is all hearsay.
66. "what else can I say" -- Nothing at all - not until you've read Jessica Mitford.
74. Dear Dr. Henry Gray : please don't! You'll be risking your reputation.

Maafi : I meant credibility.

On what authority does Scott Carney blithely report "for 200 years", and "British doctors hired thieves to dig up bodies from Indian cemeteries"?

It would really be better if you had actually read the story in WIRED before writing such a lengthy comment attacking my credibility. You can find a link at the top of this thread.

If you had read the report you would notice that I not only met people who work in the bone factories in Calcutta, but saw huge caches of bones that were being prepared for export. You might also have read that I had contacted more than 30 medical schools in the united states and interviewed them about their bone procurement. You would have also learned that I spoke with every major bone supplier in the United States and found out where the bones came from.

If you were unusually preceptive you might have also noticed that I was talking about the skeleton trade, and not the cadaver trade. It's a subtle distinction, but skeletons were supplied by India to the UK and USA. Cadavers were always harvested domestically. If you re-read the article and figure out why that is an important difference.

After reading the article, you might still have some qualms with what I wrote. In which case you should realize that every piece of writing in WIRED goes through two levels of fact checking where every sentence, and every word is followed up by a team of independent researchers. But I guess you could argue that they are all making this up too. In which case you are entitled to whatever opinion you want.

which case you should realize that every piece of writing in WIRED goes through two levels of fact checking where every sentence, and every word is followed up by a team of independent researchers. But I guess you could argue that they are all making this up too. In which case you are entitled to whatever opinion you want.

I think narayan is really stretching by calling you a fabulist. However in the aftermath of the Scott Beauchamp and W. Thomas Smith controversies, where publications like TNR and the NRO have copped to the fact that their fact-checking process could do little to catch fabrications supplied by trusted correspondents abroad, saying that Wired has a fact-checking process doesn't automatically allay people's fears about the veracity of your reporting.

That being said, I don't disagree with the content of the Wired story--just that haters like narayan would be more convincingly blown out of the water with a few links to supporting online resources for us lazy blog-readers to peruse (yes, read closely).

That being said, I don't disagree with the content of the Wired story--just that haters like narayan would be more convincingly blown out of the water with a few links to supporting online resources for us lazy blog-readers to peruse (yes, read closely).

For people interested in checking my facts feel free to use Google. I would suggest keywords like "bone factory" and "india bones", "reuters India bones" and "Osta International" and "The Bone Room". I've already done my research, you can read about it in my article. Anyone else who wants to can check my facts.

#14 - Scott, going way back, your point is well taken. But there is a very limited tradition among Hindus of revisiting the gravesites of loved ones. As you pointed out, people either thoroughly (electrically is good) cremate the body or toss it, superficially burnt, into a river. I assume they do not track its progress downstream. Except for Muslim and Christian families, I wonder whether the emotional implications of bone-marketeering arent quite limited.

Nevertheless, your story is extremely interesting.

It is too early in the morning for hostility. Seriously. I can't even articulate what I need to moderate. Carry on (or not, please).

I am skeptical of several points in this article:

1. China lacks the skills to prepare adequate skeletons. They are known
internationally in transplantation of live tissues, and they can't produce proper skeletons? Unlikely.
2. To avoid the "2000 rupee charge" people readily accept a perfunctory cremation. An isolated
case (did you actually document the cases?) does not make a factory.
3. There's a process to test the origin of the bones. There's sufficient DNA for analysis. Did you
have "received" skeletons in the US tested?
4. Why not try to procure some skeletons in the US and see the supply chain?
5. Medical schools in the US have processes in place; where's the evidence of their malfeasance?

This article has the same tone as the sex-slave trafficking articles of a couple years ago... they have
proven to be vastly blown out of proportion.

I wonder how much of this skepticism would exist if the author of the article were named "Sai Karthikeyan" instead of "Scott Carney".

But there is a very limited tradition among Hindus of revisiting the gravesites of loved ones. As you pointed out, people either thoroughly (electrically is good) cremate the body or toss it, superficially burnt, into a river. I assume they do not track its progress downstream.

fyi, 'thoroughly' cremating does not reduce everything to ashes; bones also remain - ashes and bones are taken to be merged with ocean or holy river leading finally to sea. Whether someone is able to track its progress or not - it does not mean they dont care about their loved ones remains getting back to the elements *without being intercepted*.
Surely, such a green concept is to be appreciated.
Instead, your 'logic' is boderline offensive. Emotional implications of bone marketing are there as long as you have emotions.