Matthew Woolley

7/31/16
Biology 1090
Is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable use of Technology?
On the Yes side:
Michael J. Sandel argues that genetic enhancement is an unacceptable
us of technology. Sandel supports his disposition by discussing four different
medical issues that can be treated or mastered by genetic enhancement and
why it has a negative impact on humanity. He talks about how patients with
muscular dystrophy could be alleviated from their pain by a genetic
enhancement but in turn this genetic enhancement could be available for
athletes who are not in need of the treatment and therefore gives them a
performance booster. The second medical issue is on memory
enhancements. This enhancement could allow patients with dementia or
Alzheimers to be able to regain memory. Sandel points out that it could also
have nonmedical uses such as a lawyer memorizing facts for a trial or a
businessman learning a new language before traveling to a country. While
those sound like positive outcomes the question is where is the line drawn?
How is it decided who is given this enhancement and who isnt and what will
the effect be down the line when an enhanced and non-enhanced human
reproduce? The third medical issue is regarding height. The Human Growth
Hormone is already available to the public and doctors are already facing the
question on who should be given the hormone and who shouldnt? Sandel
states that if every person who is short is given this enhancement then by
relativity normal sized people will become short and the cycle continues. The

final argument is about sex selection and characteristics in children. In all

relationships people are free to choose those they associate with apart from
children. When children are conceived you dont know what their personality
will be like or what kind of challenges they will face. So why not be able to
choose exactly how they are just like we choose other people we relate with?
Sandel talks about the two different types of love parents give their children
and how the balance of the two in critical for the development of that child.
Accepting love and Transforming love. Accepting love is a love that tells that
child he or she is perfect how they are and for being who they are while
transforming love helps a child to grow and morph into the person they will
become. Accepting love without transforming love causes neglect and
transforming love without accepting love becomes reject. The argument is
held that if we are able to choose our childs sex and characteristics then we
will be giving too much transforming love and not enough accepting love.
(Sandel, 2004).

One fact Sandel presented in his argument is Breakthroughs in

genetics present us with a promise and a predicament. Sandel, Michael J.
The Case Against Perfection. Pages 222 227. The Atlantic Monthly. April
2004.

An opinion stated by Sandel is It is more plausible to view genetic

engineering as the ultimate expression of our resolve to see ourselves

astride the world, the masters of our nature. But that promise of mastery is
flawed. It threatens to banish our appreciation of life as a gift, and to leave
us with nothing to affirm or behold outside our own will. (Sandel, 2004). This
is clearly an opinion because of its subjective nature. There is no way to test
this statement with the scientific method to show its truthfulness nor
untruthfulness to prove it a fact or fallacy. It is merely an opinion of the
author.

A major fallacy in this argument is when Sandel is discussing how the

medical issues that could be fixed by genetic enhancement can cause a
large impact on other aspects of the drug. Sandel is discussing how athletes
will take to the muscle enhancement to boost their improvement when he
says: The widespread use of steroids and other performance-improving
drugs in professional sports suggests that many athletes will be eager to
avail themselves of genetic enhancement. This type of fallacy is called
Slippery Slope when the author implies that a minor movement will
undeniably cause terrible outcomes.

The type of propaganda that is used in this specific article that stuck
out to me is Name Calling. Sandel talks about how he believes using genetic
enhancements outweighs the accepting love and falls into the territory of too
much transforming love and states This does not vindicate genetic
enhancement. On the contrary, it highlights a problem with the trend in

hyper parenting. (Sandel, 2004). At the end of the quote he is calling all
those who agree with genetic enhancement in regards to choosing
characteristics for their children to fall in the hyper parenting category
which has a negative stigma.

On the No side:

Howard Trachtman states that he believes genetic enhancement is an

acceptable use of technology. Trachtman opens his argument by discussing
great accomplishments of scientist and philosophers in our worlds history
and how Francis Fukuyama was sure that we as a human race have
accomplished all that there is to accomplish and we have learned all the
lessons we need to. Howard Trachtman goes on to discuss some pretty
terrible things that have happened since Fukuyamas statement such as the
spreading of AIDS and Ebola and the attacks on the World Trade Center.
Trachtman confidently states: {these events} demonstrate that nothing
ever goes quite exactly according to plan and that human beings still have
plenty of work cut out for them. The article continues as the author explains
that good that can come from genetic enhancement such as longer life
spans, more cancer survivors more low birth weight premature survivors and
so on. His final argument discusses how the belief that there would be a
unanimous belief that treating symptoms is better than solving the problem.
He points out the divide between those who agree and disagree with

vaccinations and wonders why anyone would believe that the public as a
whole will agree on this issue. He states that there will always be people who
are looking for the quick fix, the easy solution to the symptoms and then
there are those who will go for the permanent fix which would solve the
problem by using genetic enhancements. Trachtman states We should not
fear progress in diagnostics or try to limit medical manipulations. He goes
on to say that all of these things help us to learn and grow as a society.
(Trachtman, 2005).

I found it fairly difficult to find one solid fact while reading Trachtmans
article. It is heavy with fallacies, propaganda and opinion. The closest thing
to a fact that I found is only a partial statement. It reads: In the early
1970s, as immunization practice and administration of antibiotics became
standard and scourges of earlier eras like smallpox and polio were vanishing,
specialists in infectious disease were sure that their field had things well in
hand. The part that is underlined is what I believe may be an opinion. There
are no references for me to check the credibility of his statement. The words
prior to that can be considered a fact because in the early 1970s the
diseases mentioned were becoming a thing of the past. Trachtman, Howard.
A Man Is a Man Is a Man. The American Journal of Bioethics. Pages 228
231. (May/June 2005).

Trachtmans article is full of opinions. One opinion he states is in regard to

when he is listing off all of the great benefits of genetic enhancements and
he says: As such there appears to be no inherent reason to fear
enhancement or limit its application. (Trachtman, 2005). This statement
could easily be seen as a fallacy but I believe that it is an opinion. Trachtman
is not using straight forward facts when he makes this statement, he is fully
using subjective language when he says there appears and there is not
cold hard data behind that statement it is fully opinion.

The major fallacy in this article is how Howard Trachtman is almost

constantly attacking another person. He states what a philosopher or
scientist has said and then spends a whole paragraph explaining why they
are wrong and somewhat foolish. After discussing all the horrible things that
have taken place in the world he states: In light of all of this sobering
experience, it is surprising that physicians and bioethicists should have such
unrealistic views and apprehensions about prospective therapeutic
interventions that may arise from the remarkable advances in genetics or
neurobiology.(Trachtman, 2005).

The type of propaganda that is used in Trachtmans article is similar to the

type of fallacies that are prominent throughout his writing. The type of
propaganda that sticks out to me is the Appeals to Pride. He seems to use his
education and authority to belittle other scientist and the reader in ways to

persuade you to believe what he is promoting. This is very apparent in this

statement: From the privileged vantage point of the early 21st century, we
know how grandiose these predictions were. (Trachtman, 2005).

Final Stand:

In my opinion, the second article by Howard Trachtman, A Man Is a

Man Is a Man (the No side) was more biased. One reason I felt this way was
because after summarizing what I read and going over it again to pinpoint
facts, opinions and fallacies I struggled to find one solid fact that wasnt
smothered in his opinion in some way. He does not directly quote data or
numbers to back up his opinion and it is all very emotional.

I felt that the Yes side, the article by Michael J. Sandel was more empirical.
He discussed real medical issues and gave sound and factual reasons as to
why they are good or bad. Sandel quoted other scientists and discussed their
findings to back up his reasoning especially when he was discussing the two
types of love that parents give to their children.

At first glance while reading these two articles I felt that both of them had
compelling arguments. As I spent the time picking both articles apart and
finding their tactics it made it very easy for me to side with one of them and I
am sure it has become apparent through my writing. I felt very bothered by

the tactics that Trachtman used to get his point across which I was already
feeling apprehensive towards because of personal morals and beliefs. I side
with Michael J. Sandel and while he has arguably many fallacies as well
because he references that we as a human race should respect our place
here and know that just because we desire something doesnt mean we can
have it, those align with my beliefs. While I do believe in freedom to choose I
think there are certain things that we need not to choose from and it should
be left to nature to run its course rather than us as a human race playing a
role we shouldnt touch.