For anyone like me who is confused by the relation of the title to the story, "The title "Lena" refers to Swedish model Lena Forsén, who is pictured in the standard test image known as "Lena" or "Lenna" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna>."
I think the analogy is perfect; she consented to be photographed, but was powerless over the consequences.
Edit: ah sorry, got them confused.
There's countless trillions of her cells, with her DNA, in research labs all over the country. She never consented to that, and her family isn't happy about it. We can't know her wishes because she died of that cancer, but something like this would never pass an ethics review board today.
There is a long history of black americans being subjected to medical procedures or experiments without their consent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study), which makes this particularly problematic.
I do understand that discovering that one of your relatives' cancerous cells are still reproducing in laboratories after decades can be astounding and give a moment of pause. But it in the end it's for good, no one was harmed and nobody made an unjust fortune off it. The cells are barely human anyway, with 75 to 80 chromosomes and rapidly accumulating mutations. I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Ants are the only creatures on Earth besides humans that have built a civilization - they farm, build cities, store and cook food and generally do all the things we classify as "intelligence".
They do this while lacking any brains in the conventional sense; in any case, whatever the number of neurons in an ant colony is, it is surely orders of magnitude less than the number in our deep learning networks.
At this point us trying to make artificial intelligence is like Daedalus trying to master flight by gluing feathers on his arms.