TAKING SIDES ANALYSIS REPORT (LONG FORM)

Name: Heather Nunn

Course: Biology 1090-003
Book: Taking Sides
Issue number: 13Title of issue: Is Genetic Enhancement An Unacceptable Use Of
Technology?
1. Author and major thesis of the Yes side.
Michael J Sandel who is a political philosopher believes that genetic enhancement is
an unethical use of medical advancements, in the area of perfecting humans and
designing children. He believes this will lead to a lessened appreciation for life and
seeing it as a gift.
2. Author and major thesis of the No side.
Physician Howard Trachtman believes that these medical advancements should be
embraced especially by the medical community. He believes health is a constant
goal but cannot be perfected.
3. What fallacies of question-framing are made by the authors of the text?
Both authors framed their questions properly. Sandel only used questions that would
be made by the opposing side such as Why cant all shorter than average people
seek treatment. While Trachtman used genuine questions physicians need to
consider with genetic enhancement such as when is failure to concentrate a sign of
disease worthy of treatment.
4. Briefly state in your own words two facts presented by each side.
Yes side: Medical advancements can help many people treat many diseases such
as muscle growth for those with muscular dystrophy or memory enhancement to
help those with Alzheimers. He also states that these medical advancements can
be used to enhance those for non-medical reasons such a muscle growth in the
sports industry or increased height where he states by 1996 40% of growth
hormones prescribed were not related to ant medical condition.
No side: The author quotes that with each new medical achievement such as an xray that at the time is seen as the most advanced at the time is only to be demoted
due to new problems or complications and perfection is never achieved. He also
states that even with the most advanced treatment is available many people are
still likely to either ignore or seek other treatment just as some refuse
immunizations.

5. Briefly state in your own words two opinions presented by each side.
Yes Side: He states that using these genetic enhancements will create a lack of
appreciation for life as a gift. He also believes that genetic enhancements will only
further separate the rich from the poor where the rich can afford the treatments and
the poor are left behind eventually creating a sub species.
No Side: He believes these genetic enhancements are the next step in in our
advancement in medicine such as penicillin and should be widely used and
accepted as such. He also believes that perfection can never be achieved anyway
so these genetic enhancements are not as terrible as they seem since the product
will never be perfection.
6. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the Yes side as you can.
He uses the ethical argument to make his case without using actually facts to back
it up. Saying do we really want to live in a society where we genetically enhance
perfectly healthy kids. Also, asking to question our moral standing on the issue.
7. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the No side as you can.
He uses the world trade center attack as an example of how things never go
according to plan and further as a reason for genetic enhancement in humans even
though the events are completely unrelated.
8. All in all, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in
presenting his or her thesis? Why?
Although both authors presented their thesis very well I believe the No side present
their thesis most empirically. He used several quotes and others to back up his
ideas as well as used the fact these genetic enhancements still help people and
using it for purpose other than medical emergencies is just another effect of the
advancements. Another reason I believed the no side was better was due to the fact
that the yes side used morality and ethics as its reason against genetic
enhancement with no real facts to back up why it is unethical and why that means it
should be avoided.
9. Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased? If so, why do
they have these biases?
Yes both sides showed some biases. Since the author of the yes side is a
philosopher he would more likely be looking at the morality and ethics of subjects as
well as seeing existence and life in the way of perfect as is or as a gift with in its self
that must be understood rather than changed. The author of the no side is a

physician so he would be more inclined to see genetic enhancement as another

medical option and just a new advancement in his line if work rather than a morality
issue.
10. Which side (Yes or No) do you personally feel is most correct now that
you have reviewed the material in these articles? Why?
I believe the No side is more correct. Not only does the author present his ideas with
actual evidence he is not questioning our morality on the subject. I believe that the
new discoveries in the medical world are great for both those who need help
fighting diseases but also need that further edge in life. I feel these genetic
enhancements used for non-medical reasons would be seen the same a plastic
surgery and I agree with the author in that even though these enhancements exist
not everyone will be running to get them just as not everyone is running to have
plastic surgery. If these medical advancements make us question life as a gift then
we shouldnt accept any medical treatment to help with our survival. Medicine is
meant to make us better as a species and if that means creating smarter and
healthier people with genetic enhancement then it will happen. The one thing I do
agree with on the yes side is that since these enhancements would be very
expensive the poor and the rich would only be further separated but that as has to
do with politics. Overall I believe genetic enhancement is inevitable and will be soon
as common as plastic surgery.