1

TAKING SIDES ANALYSIS REPORT (LONG FORM)

Name: Sarah Fairbourne
Course: Biol 1090
Book: Taking Sides; Clashing Views in Health and Society
Issue number: 12 Title of issue Is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable Use of Technology?

1. Author and major thesis of the Yes side. According to the author, Michael J. Sandel, in the case of
using genetic enhancement enhance ourselves physically, the predicament is that our newfound
genetic knowledge may also enable us to manipulate our nature

2. Author and major thesis of the No side. The author, Mr. Howard Trachtman, begins the article with a
history lesson on the advancements of science and thought leading up to today. He states that during
every era of science and society, those who were involved thought that they were standing on the verge
of the last word on the subject at hand.

3. What fallacies of question-framing are made by the authors of the text?
None: both authors frame the questions properly. Sandel and Trachtman disagree; they question the
scientific validity of the claim, and cite the basis of their disagreement on the ground of scientific
evaluation of the studies as well as societal factors surrounding the issue.

4. Briefly state in your own words two facts presented by each side.
The Yes side presented supporting facts citing the off-label use for growth hormones among children
that are less than their average percentile, but not as a result of any medical problem, i.e. simply to
make their kids taller for social/economical reasons. Another is the quest to adapt research that helps
Alzheimers for use in the general public as cognition enhancers that would again increase the
advantage of those that can afford over those that cannot.

The No facts essentially state that just because a treatment becomes available, does not mean it will
quickly latch on by humanity. Most people are generally suspicious and cautious of new medical
advances. I personally know people still not willing to try Lasik for fear of some adverse side effect, even
though Lasik has been around for many years. Another cited fact isThe abuse of erythropoietin by

2

athletes does not detract from the qualitative improvement in the lives of patients with end stage renal
disease who are treated with this drug.

5. Briefly state in your own words two opinions presented by each side.
The Yes side opinion was the concern for two classes, and that human enhancing treatments would be
expensive; therefore only those who can afford them can have them. Another is that choosing such a
course towards perfection is assault on the appreciation of life as a gift and deprives parents of
humility and sympathies

The No side emphasized that we must not fear or limit because we do not know what the future will
bring. Events like 911 show we will always have something to fear and try to overcome. Another opinion
was to the effect that we would not try to prevent the self-improvement that most people seek via
education, exercising, meditation etc. why should the enhancement at a genetic level be any different.

6. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the Yes side as you can.
For many who may not share a theological view that life is a gift. Somewhere there may be a body of
people that do not share that view, and to them an Island of Dr. Monroe is an acceptable use of
technology. By simply abstaining from research on such moral grounds (e.g. halting stem cell research)
will merely put at a disadvantage those believing life is a gift.The hormonal arms-race is something
that happens even without genetic enhancement. Prejudices not only affect this, but preferences also.
Most tall people trend to marry others of their height and each succeeding generation continue to
increase in height. This eventually causes problems for society as well e.g. taller public door and ceiling
height requirements. Would a public mandate that all future children meet a maximum of 6 ft (min 58)
via gene selection for the purpose of homogenization of public infrastructure be of benefit for all?


7. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the No side as you can.
The assumption that acceptance of genetic enhancement would not lead to a Pandoras Box of
problems. It cannot be ever assumed that human enhancing technology will not be abused to the point
or that we can keep a lid on it. His statement of if viewed as a hard wired human trait that we all
engage in. This would only be the ideal, as invariably there will always be differences in acceptable
standards for enhancement. E.g. one region of the world may state enhancement x is acceptable,
whereas that crosses the line to another region.

3


8. All in all, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in presenting his or her thesis?
Why?
I personally tend to believe more along the lines of Mr. Sandel: that genetic manipulation has to
be limited to certain cases of necessity, and that it should be used for its original intended purpose of
helping those who are truly disadvantaged live equal lives. I do believe that their are other less drastic
ways of making life more worthwhile, and that no one should tamper with their own genetics just to
make them smarter or faster or stronger. I think that it goes too far to make available to everyone the
ability to change their genes, and that Dr. Trachtman is wrong when he says that genetic manipulation is
akin to any other type of personal enhancement and should be utilized as such.

9. Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased? If so, why do they have these biases?
Even though I believe in genetic enhancement, I did have a tendency to feel that Trachtmans position
may have had biased overtones as he seemed to support his views with less philosophical or supportive
real-world examples, I would assume his bias would stem from a physician background that would lend
to a open mind regarding all things genetic.

10. Which side (Yes or No) do you personally feel is most correct now that you have reviewed the
material in these articles? Why?
I n reading the material provided on this subject, I was presented with something that has
plagued mankind since the beginning: trying to make one s self perfect. In reading about how this
scientific breakthrough has posed new questions about morality, I remembered the old tale from
ancient Greece of the inventors son Icarus who took his fathers invention, something great and
amazing: the ability to fly, but ignoring his fathers instructions on how to use the invention, flew too
close to the sun and destroyed him. I think also about the Old Testament story about the Tower of
Babel, where the prideful people thought they could get to heaven by building a tall tower, but instead
where destroyed and scattered for their vanity. In reading about this topic, I had a personal struggle
about where the line should be drawn between when science should be used to help humanity, and
used to further our own personal vanities. This is why I love this part of this class, because it takes
science and places the issues in a moral and philosophical context. I learn a lot because I have to think
about the issues and examine them from both sides, something that is key to really forming a viewpoint.