New 1

Johnny New
Is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable Use of Technology
8:30-9:50
Spring 2014

The topic I choose to read about was Is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable use of
Technology. The major thesis in the yes argument by Michael Sandel he believes that using
genetic technology is wrong and a flawed way to attempt to get human mastery. The major thesis
for the no side of the argument by Howard Trachtman is that humans will always want to
advance and that we should not fear this advancement. These are the two major theses of the Yes
and the No side of the argument is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable use of Technology.
Two facts that the yes side of the argument portrayed, is one that recently medical
advances in science have been made and have been tested on mice that can stop and even reverse
the effects of muscle deterioration. Another Fact that was represented on the yes side of the
argument is that by 1996 off-label or not needed prescriptions accounted for 40% of human
growth hormone prescriptions. A fact that was represented by the No side of the argument was
that in the early 1970s the administration off antibiotics became usual. Another Fact that was
represented by the no side of the argument was their will always be a gray area in what we do but
just because that gray area exists it does not mean that the effects on Antibiotics or other drugs
lose their effect.
One opinion that was represented by the yes side of the argument for is the use of
Genetic enhancement is acceptable is everyone would welcome Gene therapy to get rid of
muscular dystrophy. Another opinion that the Yes side of the argument gave us to appreciate
New 2

children as gifts or blessing not because we were able to create them exactly how we wanted to
but to love them regardlessly. Some of the opinions that the no side of the argument gave us is
there is no inherent reason to fear enhancement of this kind or to limit this enhancements
abilities. Another opinion that Howard Trachtman gives us in the no side of the argument is he
believes that it is not likely that everyone will line up and receive all these new genetic
enhancements.
A misleading statement that Michael Sandel writes in his article takes place in the first
paragraph, Sandel gives us positives about genetic enhancement, and then the only downside to it
is that science is moving faster than our moral understanding, which is a good point but to some
one who has his mind made up about this subject this will mean nothing. A fallacy that the No
statement presents is he states that everyone will want a quick fix, but he also states that not
everyone will line up for these new genetic enhancements. This is contrary to what he stated
earlier. These are fallacies that I found that hurt both the authors credibility after I read them.
I thought the author that was most correct in his argument was Michaela Sandel in the yes
side of the argument. I thought he did a better job in breaking down the issues and giving us
more firsthand examples and breaking those examples down and giving reason why he believes
we shouldnt do that, that is why I thought his argument was more empirical than the no side of
the argument by Howard Trachtman. I think that Michael Sandels side of the argument is
correct in my point of view because of his point about how we should love our children for them
and not because we designed them how we wanted them to be. I think one of the reasons that
Howard Trachtmans argument might of relied on less scientific finding is the subject he wrote
on is he used his on belief on why we should allow genetic enhancement unlike Trachtman who
New 3

gave more scientific example on we should not use Genetic enhancemetnt. Overall I thought
That Sandel had the more convincing argument.