Gabrielle Cohen

BIO 1090
Prof. Kavitha Damal
10/4/2015
Is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable Use of Technology?
On the yes side, The Case Against Perfection, it argues that even though enhancement
can be good, it sometimes can surpass moral understanding and whether genetic
enhancement manipulates our purpose in nature and our position in it. In terms of moral
understanding, we could have perfection, but it wouldnt be really considered natural,
because we ourselves are trying to remake human nature and are trying to create our
perception of perfection. Such as when parents want a boy over a girl, or a taller child
versus a shorter one.
One fact that I believed I found is that Seeking to expand its market, Eli Lilly & Co.
recently persuaded the FDA to approve its human growth hormone for healthy children
whose projected adult height is in the bottom one percentile under five feet three inches
for boys and four feet eleven inches for girls. I wasnt able to find an article that talked
about the company persuading the FDA, but found the website for the drug by the
company: http://humatrope.com/. The essay itself did not provide any references, so this
is going on limb.
An opinion provided by the this side of the argument is In order to grapple with the
ethics of enhancement, we need to confront questions largely lost from view-questions
about the moral status of nature, and about the proper stance of human beings in the
given world. Since these questions verge on theology, modern philosophers and political
theorists tend to shrink from them. I believe that this merely an opinion and not a fact or
fallacy is because morality and human beings in nature can be very opinion based,
because people themselves can determine their own morality. And I feel that this opinion
is quite biased because it could be the time period or what not, but I have read many
today books that question morality and theology itself.
One type of fallacy that is presented is that author often generalizes about how everything
applies to everyone. In terms of when talking about the genetic enhancement of muscles,
the author mentions that with the widespread of performance enhancing drugs and
steroids, that many athletes will be eager to use it. In terms of height, it mentions on how
parents seem to prefer a taller child if they themselves are tall, but has no fact to back it
up. In terms of sex, the author mentions on how traditional societies with prefer boys
versus girls, even though that is not always the case. The author seems to overgeneralize,
which causes such fallacy.
In terms of propaganda, The Case Against Perfection appeals to others by using a mix
of fear and pride. In terms of the pride, the essay continues to use that since this exists
(genetic enhancement and drugs), that people will start to use them, such as the example
that was used about the use of steroids and performance enhancing drugs, that more

people, such as athletes will start to use them themselves. It makes people question their
own knowledge, and makes them prideful in thinking that not all would do so, which is
true. In terms of fear, the essay mentions and uses, that since this is happening it is going
to happen anyways and will affect who we are, as in they put the fear that people are
losing their humanity. An example of this is when the writer continues to mention a loss
of humanity and morality in terms of sex selection and in enhancement of science, on
how we prefer things will dictate that loss.
On the no side, A Man Is A Man Is A Man, it argues in agreeing on how genetic
enhancement and advancement makes us human and is an acceptable use of technology,
and that people who use it, even for the wrong reasons, will not setback the enhancement.
And even though the enhancement exists, there are always risks to taking it and it does
not always work. In those terms, people dont always get the exaggerated claims. In terms
of the medical enhancement, though, it does argue that it shouldnt be used to achieve
perfection, but for people to become healthier.
One fact presented in the no side of the argument is 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. The reference to this fact is
Schumacher et al. 2001, located on the reference page of the no side argument.
One opinion presented in the no side of the argument is Michael Sandels (2004) article
is representative of this literature and Kamms (2005) review is an insightful analysis of
this position. However, I think it falls short on several practical points that should disarm
anxious critics of enhancement. This personally think that this in itself is an opinion,
because itself is trying to dissuade that belief from their own, and are trying to make their
argument more plausible than the other.
The fallacy presented in this argument was the when the author using a statement that
could be true, and then the second part of it could be considered a false prediction. The
fallacy mention above was when the author was talking about judging the medicine
through religion could be part of religious dogma and the outcome could be ignored if it
caused no harm to the community or to an individual. That more so is opinion, but more
false because there have been plenty of communities who have taken their beliefs so
much into them, that the community destroyed themselves in fear of the government or
what not. And people have chosen religious medicine or paying people to give them
blessings to cure them, but that in it self harms those people because they dont get an
actual cure they need, even if the disease is curable
The propaganda technique used on the no side of the argument would the appealing to
pride. In terms of pride, the essay continually uses facts in order to throw off the reader,
while also mixing in observations and logic. The behavior of the essay seems to be more
in a not-at-all behavior, which would continually challenge the reader and their beliefs. A
statement that uses this technique would be Finally, the distinction that is being made
between treatment which is justified and permissible versus enhancement which smacks
of hubris and should be constrained may prove to be irrelevant in real life situations

where the boundaries are blurred by rapid advances in medical therapeutics and the
definition of disease itself. In this situation, the author is pretty much calling out
everyone trying to improve themselves, maybe in appearance or stature, by saying that
their enhancement is not important in actual situations, because it neither makes people
healthier or better. It just improves their perception of their looks, which this statement
makes them look haughty and stupid for their perceived notion of enhancement.
The Case Against Perfection (yes side) out of both sides is the most biased because
even though it provides some fact in their, there are no sources provided to support for
the argument, so I have no idea whether or not anything that could support the argument
is factual or not.
Determining which side would be considered most empirical because both provide plenty
of observation, but both also provide plenty of logic arguments. Again though, I would
say that the yes side is the most empirical because it does seem to provide a lot of
observation, and even though it does provide a lot of logic in the arguments, it only seems
to be supported by both the logic and the observations.
I dont really side with either side of the argument, because I do agree with some of the
arguments provided by both. In terms of the yes side, I would say that I agree that ethics
could fall behind the scientific and genetic enhancement; ethics could be easily clouded
when one is determined to create something new or find something new, since having no
barriers is easier to find those things. Also, in terms of regular people using it, I do agree
with the argument about how it could be used to pick a preferable sex, or even a
preferable height; it could be considered discriminatory. Though I dont agree in terms of
memory and muscle, because there are plenty of people with muscle dystrophy, which
could be helped, and in terms of memory, Alzheimers and other memory loss could also
be helped. In terms of the no side, I would say that I do agree that human and genetic
enhancement can be considered human nature and part of are own evolution into
perfection, and that is not always what it cracks up to be. I also agree that it should be
used for some things in terms of becoming healthier and should not be abused, I
although, dont agree that abusing enhancements and drugs doesnt put back
enhancement. I would say it is the opposite because based on how people perceive the
actions of others and how they over identify and generalize it with others.