If it happens that they find out the they "don't need it" then they should split the money with the family if they do find some other institution willing to take the body and only if the family has, again, agreed on what is going to be done.
This particular body should be of interest to them since as already mentioned, she didn't carry the genes for the disease. Checking bodies like these could help discover how the disease develop in people who would have been labelled as "low risk" when doing DNA tests.
you are deaf I guess? They can't arrest a pedo like ghislaine maxwell... why do you still believe there is justice in the usa?
This added NOTHING to the conversation.
This particular body should be of interest to them since as already mentioned, she didn't carry the genes for the disease. Checking bodies like these could help discover how the disease develop in people who would have been labelled as "low risk" when doing DNA tests.
That's the thing, I truly highly doubt that there was any thing signed stating that it was going to be used for research purposes. It was most likely just donated to the research group, and they had autonomy over what they would want to do with it.
They got additional money from this body and they're going to be able to further research on the disease. I would assume that if the son asked what was going to happen to the body, they would inform him -- but that's a difficult question to ask so it was never asked.
Then they should have made it clear that they reserve the option to resell the bodies so that relatives wouldn't be surprised to see the corpses of their family in car crashes or on display in some exhibit.
I can't find much information about the process in the US but apparently the norm was that the body is cremated after research and the ashes returned and that putting it on exhibit requires permission from the family.