Paydon Barnhart

Biology 1090- 9:00 MWF

Eric Green
Taking Sides #1
October 10, 2014
Genetic Enhancement
1. Michael J. Sandel states that genetic enhancement should not be used to increase
performance, create, or design children, because it is against human nature; because it
goes against the nature of life.
2. Howard Trachtman argues that genetic enhancement should not be taken for granted, and
should be used to help medically. He also recognizes that perfection in health will not be
achieved, but genetic enhancement is still beneficial in finding answers within the
medical field.
3. - Researchers created a synthetic gene, in which it stops, and sometimes counteracts
muscle deterioration. They administered the created gene in lab mice muscles, and found
that the gene not only fixed injured muscles, but helped build and fortified healthy ones.
- Researchers have also created smart mice, in which they administered extra copies of
memory-related genes into the embryos of lab mice. The modified mice were able to
learn at a quicker pace, and retain information for a longer span of time.
4. - During the 1970s, standards to issue immunization practices and antibiotics became
abundant. Eras before, such as smallpox and polio, began to vanish as time grew on. This
created a pathway for specialists within the field.
- Even with the abundance of immunizations, there are still parents unwilling to immunize
their child, because they are in search of a quick fix, or other alternatives. They resist the
help of medical physicians and their advice.
5. In Michael J. Sandels opinion, genetic enhancement is a question of morals, believing it
is not morally right. Whether this be for ones own benefit, or their childs. He also
emphasizes that it goes against the natural gift of life, because people are in search of
human mastery. This destroys the native relationship between children and their parents.
6. Physician Howard Trachtman accepts genetic enhancement, and believes it is a major
benefit within the medical field. He expresses that is a way to improve and increase
health, and peoples well being. Trachtman looks at genetic enhancement as progress,
and believes we should not limit medical manipulations that are able to benefit our
society.
7. I think throughout Michaels entire argument it is a fallacy. Specifically when he
discusses muscle enhancement within the lab mice, he is explaining how innovative it is,
and how it was beneficial to weakened muscles, but ends his entire piece as genetic
enhancement is immoral as a whole. He stated that the muscle enhancement, bodes well
for human applications. But he goes on later to say it is immoral.
8. Howard Trachtman states, But, despite rapid approval and grand hopes, no enhancement
or treatment has ever turned out to be all it was cracked up to be, but then goes on later
and states how it has been very beneficial within medical findings. Even the previous
argument for the Yes side even shows ways that genetic enhancement has been
beneficial. This statement counteracts his entire argument.
9. I believe that the Yes side is more correct within his statements. Even the whole major
issue of his opinion is that is immoral, he had great findings present that showed how
beneficial genetic enhancement has the potential to be. He had clear examples of genetic
enhancement, that helped the reader better understand what exactly it was. Though I do
not agree with his complete thesis, I do believe Sandels statements were more correct.
10. As I stated before, Sandel had more scientific findings throughout his statements, more so
than Trachtmans. He supported his claims about scientific findings, within muscles,
memory, height, and sex selection. He gave scientific examples in each area, giving a
clearer view of genetic enhancement.
11. Trachtman had more unsupported statements, that did not really tie into his own opinion
and thesis. It was hard to find scientific facts or findings that supported his statements. It
was all based on just having to take his word, rather than giving the facts. Trachtman was
very biased in his own opinion because he felt as though there are people who do not
agree, or take scientific or medical help. He feels skeptical because they may be weary to
even listen to facts, because they do not listen to them now, thus causing him to leave out
facts, and more so state his opinion.