Lisa Hancock

Biology 1090
Cherie Byars
August 5, 2016
E-PORTFOLIO TAKING SIDES
IS GENETIC ENHANCEMENT AN UNACCEPTABLE USE OF TECHNOLOGY?
The major thesis, or point, of the Yes side is that Political philosopher Michael J. Sandel believes that
genetic enhancement is flawed and that it interrupts the natural flow of life. The major thesis, or point, of the No
side is that Physician Howard Trachtman believes that we should embrace genetic enhancement. He believes
that it should not be limited to only helping the medically ill but to also be available to those that wish to
enhance genetics either by way of height, intelligence, or even by choosing the sex of individuals children.
Two facts presented by the Yes side were that today they have now found a way that parents can select
the sex of their children and that researchers have already developed a synthetic gene that not only enhances
muscles but can also prevent and reverse muscle deterioration. Two facts presented by the No side were, that
nothing in this world ever quite goes as expected or as planned, change is inevitable and that scientists and
biologists are always seeking to improve and come up with better remedies and inventions.
Two opinions presented by the Yes side were that we should appreciate our children as they are and that
our love for our children should not be subject solely on the talents they possess although I believe this could be
fact or opinion. And that through genetic enhancement we could be taking away from individuals obligations to
better their selves naturally and that we could be taking away from parents obligations to develop their children
naturally. Two opinions presented by the No side were that individuals rarely care about the motivation of their
physician, that they are ONLY interested in getting better and that physicians rarely question or care why their
patients which to get better, and that there should be no reason to fear or reject genetic enhancement.
A fallacy, or a misleading statement presented on the Yes side would be that it should be legal to
prescribe and sell drugs that are not approved by the FDA. A fallacy or a misleading statement on the No side is,
well, there is a lot he says that is misleading. One would be where he talks about all of us wanting to enhance

our lives, however he doesnt tie it in to the issue we are discussing. Of course it is the hope that individuals
which to enhance their lives, but this should be done naturally not by genetic enhancement.
The side that I feel is most correct I would have to say that I am more for the no side. I do believe in the
use of genetic enhancement for medical reasons, however, to take it to the extremes of enhancing ones naturally
born self I completely believe is just wrong. I agree with pretty much everything that Sandel states. For
example, I feel that by allowing parents to genetically enhance their children takes away from their natural
ability to parent; as Sandel states, parenthood is a school for humility. I believe that by wanting to do so is
saying that we do not have the ability to love unconditionally.
As far as overall with which author impressed me as being the most empirical in presenting his or her
thesis, well, I do not believe either one of them relied on scientific findings, however, if I had to choose one I
would choose Trachtman. I only say this because he does use reference to many others opinions and he
mentions some surveys.
As for the author that I think relied more on unsupported statements and less on scientific findings (the
less empirical author); and possible reason(s) for why they may be biased in their opinion to me the one that had
a reason to be biased would be Trachtman, as he is a prescribing physician and with genetic enhancement it
provides him with more to offer which in turn provides more patients which in turn makes him money.