Taking Sides Analysis Report

Braden Despain Topic 3 Genetic Enhancement 9:00-9:50am March 5, 2014

1. Doctor Michael J. Sandel takes a position of Yes; that human genetic enhancement is unacceptable. His reasons for stating why he believes enhancing the human genome is unethical include unequal advantages and availability, commercialization, hormonal arms-race, superhuman aspirations, and a lack of respect for the giftedness of life. Specifically, I think that the main point of the side take is that even though human genetic enhancement can help cure illness and potentially heal various diseases, the concept of hyperagency (along with hyperparenting) takes away from the natural way humans live and interact with one another. 2. The other side of the debate, concerning human genetic enhancement, it given by Howard Trachtman who advocates its use. He particularly agrees with it application in the medical neighborhood such as treatments for diseases, health deficiencies, and other medical manipulations. The idea that despite abuses and minor problems, the use of genetic enhancement with humans is appropriate in order to benefit the health and well-being of mankind. 3. The concept that manipulating the human genome allows us to manipulate our nature is a fact because not only do we have the research, strategies, and technology to do it, but also that the human genome is a natural part of us. Also stated, is the fact that if we start enhancing everyone there will always be individual rights to be considered 4. It is very much a fact that genetic engineering has helped humans with food, animals, and some treatments and how all of these enhance human life. Pertaining to directly genetically modifying

humans is the fact that it will aid us in medical science and treatment that will help diseased or broken humans. 5. The notion of how parents raise and love their children is an opinion that is different for everyone. Im actually on Dr. Sandels side in how children are supposed to be special individuals, not something that parents can scheme. Another opinion addressed, is that we as the human race seek to control the world and our surroundings. Yes that is the case for many, but not all. 6. It is stated that mastery is a natural human trait, whether it is mastery of ourselves or master of our environment. Yet, this opinion doesnt prove that mastery is the underlying drive for enhancement. The actual definition of enhancement is subjective, so when it is generalized it is only another opinion. 7. Honestly, I had a hard time finding a fallacy, but when Dr. Sandel was explaining human genetic enhancement in memory, he started getting in to evolution and how this could result in two different subspecies. I thought it was misleading because it is somewhat off topic as well as unsupported concern. 8. The first two paragraphs could be considered misleading, because it sort of leads the reader from the main topic. Trachtman started talking about the Berlin Wall and such, and I was somewhat confused. He tied it back in later, but not until the fourth paragraph. I think he could have gotten to the point quicker. 9. Personally, I agree more with Sandels position on genetic enhancement for humans. He acknowledges and even accepts that this technology can be useful in the medical world. I share this view that if we have the available means of helping a sick or injured person then we should take advantage of it. I also disagree with involving genetically engineering with children. Like Sandel said, parents should love their children no matter how they end up. If they modified them to be what they already loved, then how truly do they really love their children? There is also the question if

different types of enhancements will be used for personal gain such as sports. I think if we use it, we need to be able to control it properly. 10. Trachtman did have in-text citations, but to me I was impressed with Sandels greater amount of data and facts as it related to each topic he addressed. He gives many pertinent examples such as Eli Lilly & Co. and the FDA or with the studious lawyer and business executive. He mentions a study done with mice injected with muscle-related genes and how it relates to the real world. I think it makes an author seem more credible and competent when they can bring up the other side of the issue in an attempt to be unbiased, and so he or she can counter it. Overall, I feel the scientific evidence was more prominent and elaborate in The Case Against Perfect. 11. For one, Howard Trachtman is a physician and is greatly benefited by human genetic enhancement just as much as his patients are. He is most likely going to get a part of the money made by applying this science. Throwing aside greed or corruption, he fails to acknowledge his opposing side efficiently. Multiple times, Trachtman states that if the science or concept has applications in the real world that can help humans, then why not go ahead and do it, because there is always going to be someone trying to misuse it. He makes it seem unavoidable and even a duty of mankind to enhance themselves. I do have to give him credit for stating that we can become healthier, but never perfect, which is being realistic.