Emily Woltkamp

Biology 1090
Taking Sides
June 15, 2015
Taking side: Is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable use of Technology?
E-portfolio:
When I think about this topic all I can think about is rich people with money trying to
make themselves and their children the perfect human being. They want to become more elite
and powerful by giving themselves the best of everything. The best height, stamina, smarts, and
even the preferred gender. By allowing a situation like this to occur, it would separate society
into two different types of species. Every human being is a gift from God and to genetically alter
a human is taking away the plan God has created for us. It will take away everything that makes
us unique.
On the yes side:
Michael J Sandel argues his case against perfection. He talks about different ways in
which humans can change their genetic make-up, including muscle stamina, memory, height, and
gender selection. He talks about what began as an attempt to treat a disease or prevent a genetic
disorder now has become a consumer choice to improve themselves to their liking. Sandel
believes that by changing our genetic disposition we are becoming the masters over nature and
are therefore taking the gift of like for granted.
When discussing the ideas of memory Sandel brings up the ideas that pharmaceuticals
would jump on any opportunity to make a buck off any person willing to spend money on a drug.
This to me would be an example of an opinion stated in this article. If the 81 million Americans
who are over the age of fifty, that are beginning to encounter memory loss would give the
industry a bonanza of money. (Michael J. Sandel, The Atlantic Monthly) I agree with Sandel

and say that the only reason that the medical industry would want to agree to genetic enhancing
is for gain in wealth.
H Lee Sweeny, of the University of Pennsylvania has developed a synthetic gene that,
when injected into the muscle cells of mice, it prevents and even reverses natural muscle
deterioration. (Michael J. Sandel, The Atlantic Monthly) This would be an example of a fact
that shows the steps that have been taken to enhance the quality of life. If scientists are able to
make these injections work then it will help promote a longer health life, and the longevity of
muscles and flexibility.
In the views of propaganda, Sandel uses theologian William F. May to express the
importance of love. This is something that appeals to a wide range of audience. It draws a lot of
people in due to the fact that religion is a huge part of everyones life. Propaganda is used to drag
people into a topic and convince them their opinions are correct.
Michael J Sandel talks about how in the 1980s a human growth hormone has been
approved for children with a hormone deficiency that makes them much shorter than average. I
dont believe that this is something really out there that just about anyone can have if they ask
their pediatrician for it, especially since 1980s or we would have heard about it. This to me is a
fallacy. Those who are considered dwarfs and who have medical problems havent been cured so
where is this hormone?
On the no side:
In Howard Trachtmans A Man is a Man is a Man, he talks about how no matter what
the treatment is, there is always going to be something that follows in its place. For example
with a longer life span, it will mean more cancer and dementia. He also goes on to say that if he
can confidently help the patient with their problem safely and effectively, than who is he to say

what is an acceptable complaint and what isnt. Trachtman finishes his article by saying that
there will always be those who ling up to get a quick fix but not everyone is going to choose to
embrace the change. We also need to keep looking for a healthier us.
On fact that I found in this article was when Trachtman referenced a sports medicine
specialist Schumacher saying the abuse of erythropoietin by athletes does not detract from the
qualitative improvement in the lives of patients with end stage renal disease who are treated with
this drug. Trachtman in this statement is trying to show that even though there are those that will
abuse the new enhancement, there are still those that would benefit greatly from those
treatments.
Howard Trachtman states his opinion when he asks the question when is failure to
concentrate a sign of disease worthy of treatment and when does it indicate a lazy student who is
not willing to work hard enough in school? He asks this question to get his opinion across that
no one should judge a person based on what medical treatment and to decide whether or not
someone is worthy of medication.
Trachtman believes that when people frown upon physicians who provide this treatment
that it will cause a groundswell of people wanting treatment. To me this would be a fallacy
because no evidence is given to support this claim. No one knows if people really do feel this
way about the medical field because I do not believe that if more doctors provide services for
abortion that people would be lining up to get it done. This statement is made up in order to add
dramatic effect.
In the second to last sentence in this article, Trachtman uses a quote from Ethics of the
Fathers The day is short, the work is hard, the employees are tired, the reward is great, and the

boss is pressing. This to me is propaganda because it uses an inspirational quote to pull his
audience in just like in any other propaganda situations.
Conclusion:
In my opinion, I feel like the second article A Man is a Man, is a Man is bias because
the article itself is written by a physician. A lot of what Howard Trachtman says/writes in his
article his opinion of the medical field and how others perceive it from the outside.
The article that is most empirical in my opinion, would be The case against perfection.
Sandel provides a lot of facts about the subject throughout different topics and his background in
political philosophy gives him experience in different political experiences. He has knowledge of
historical events and how different past events effect us today.
Between these two articles I agree mostly with Michael Sandels. In his article I feel as if
he provided more information and research on the topic. I personally dont believe anyone
should be allowed that kind of medical treatment unless they absolutely need it in order to
survive.