Alex Bennett Duane Conrad Hudson Biology 1090 7, October 2013

Is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable Use of Technology?

There are two sides to this story, the yes from Philosopher Michael J. Sandel, argues that genetic enhancements to design children and to make improvements to human nature is awed and makes people less appreciative of life. And the no from physician Howard Tractman, who argues that enhancement is not perfect yet, but in time will be so we should continue on the quest as we grow closer and closer to achieving success. While reading this article it is hard to choose a side because neither of the two authors seem to believe or show any evidence that genetic enhancements are 100% effective in todays world. On the yes side of the fence, saying that it is without a doubt an unacceptable use of technology, Sandel argues that scientists have been successful in changing the genetics of mice so they have stronger muscles in old age. This same affect may soon be available for humans. By 1996, off-label growth hormones were about 40 percent of sales. Parents misused these hormones in such ways as to even make their children taller. Tractman argues the no side of this issue, saying that genetic enhancement has been used to help people. A drug misused by athletes is used to treat patients with renal disease. Even if genetic enhancements are widely available it is not likely that people would take advantage of them. I would say my opinion on the subject leans toward the views of Michael J. Sandel, the political philosopher. If we look to the past it is fairly easy to see that the use of genetic enhancements has brought less than successful results. With the use of each new drug or enhancement comes a long list of new challenges and complications. Genetic enhancements brings an increased risk of cancer, cardio and pulmonary complications and dementia. The author uses the word sinister, when describing genetic enhancements. But then never fully backs up his claim. He also uses a slippery slope argument in claiming that if everyone became taller, those of average height would want to be taller as well. The average height of humans would increase. The author states that the treatments never deliver on all great expectations, either good or bad. As such there appears to be no inherent reson to fear enhancement or limits to its application. While I do believe that statement could be true, I think there is other options that could bring the same desired result in a more simple way. I thought the no author, Tractman, involved a lot more facts in his argument which made him look more credible. I was more impressed with him because he used the negative aspects of when those genetic enhancements have been misused and pointed out the fact that if they were used correctly they would be able benet many people's lives. The only situation I can think of that would cause someone to become super biased on this subject would be if they or a loved one had experienced genetic enhancements that

had a negative affect. I dont think either of these authors had any extreme bias. My personal opinion lies with Howard Tractman on the no side of the fence, but at the same time I believe scientists should continue their study and research until they have perfected these enhancements on animals. After they have proven to be affective, and we gure out how to reduce the side effects to become very minimal, I believe when we get to that point we can begin to use these enhancements for the good of improving our society.