Chris Jones

June 20, 2015

E-portfolio Assignment
On the Yes Side.
The author, Michael J. Sandel, opposes genetic enhancement in
humans for non-medical necessities. Sandels essay states that genetic
enhancement would negatively affect our appreciation for an individuals
gifts. He writes that athletic abilities cannot be appretiated if they can be
bought. He also writes that allowing genetic modifications would allow for
wealthy individuals to genetically modify their children, while those who are
poor would not be able to afford these modifications. According to Sandel,
the result of this would be two different types of humans, those who are
genetically modified and those who are not.
One fact presented in the article is genetic enhancement for memory
in mice is already possible. Embryos had specific genes inserted into them,
and the resulting mice remembered things longer, and learned quicker than
mice without this gene (Sandel 2004). One propaganda claim that Sandel
makes explains that the appreciation of giftedness is under siege in
athletic competitions. This is an appeal to fear, as the words under siege
are typically reserved for describing war. An actual opinion presented in the
article is that humans have a moral responsibility to appreciate a persons
natural abilities without genetic enhancements. It is not a fact because moral
beliefs cannot be facts, but is not a fallacy because it cannot be shown to be
false. The article presents an example of the Red Herring Fallacy when the

author states that abortions are occurring because parents dont want a girl,
and that even most supporters of abortions dont support this type of
abortions, he is distracting from the issue of genetic enhancement.

On the No Side
The main point in the article written by Howard Trachtman is that past
advancements in science and technology that were criticized for changing
humanity, and ending advancement within that field of study generally did
not result in the situation described by those attempting to predict the
outcome of the particular advancement. Trachtman suggests that because
other advancements did not result in the negative outcomes that were
predicted, that people should not assume they will occur with genetic
enhancement. In my opinion it seems strange to use unrelated scientific
advances to predict consequences of a potentially new technology. An
opinion the author presents is that he believes that patients will no line up to
receive genetic enhancements. This is an opinion because he doesnt cite
any factual studies supporting it, but he isnt using false information to
persuade people (Trachtamn 2005).
One fallacy present is the appeal to ignorance. The author writes about
how many other scientific advancements, such as the x-ray, were criticized
for being potentially damaging to patients, but ultimately failed to meet
those criticisms. Because little is known about how genetic enhancements
could affect humanity, the author writes his own vague conclusion to it. A

fact presented is that most of the enhancements mentioned, such as genetic

memory and muscle enhancements, are not yet available (Trachtmamn
2005).
Final Stand
I think that Sandels argument is far more opinionated because
throughout his essay he explains that humans have a moral right to
appreciate our natural state of being. Sandel also cites no outside material
within his article, while Tractmamn using several outside sources to support
his argument. Sandel also uses an argument of moral objection, verses
Tractmamns argument that results of genetic enhancement are practically
unknown. Because Tractmamns side uses outside sources I would say his
article is more empirical, although both articles fail to cite studies about
genetic enhancement.
Personally I believe that genetic enhancement is acceptable. Sure
some may abuse it for non-medical purposes, but the medical implications
could potentially be incredible. Im okay with somebody cheating in a football
game, if it means another person who previously couldnt walk and run might
be able to do so. I also believe that enhancing intelligence related genes
could do amazing things for otherwise disabled children. The replacement of
abilities for individuals who may have never had them otherwise is worth the
cost of individuals abusing these potential treatments to do preform
exceptional feats.