Taking Sides Assignment #2

Is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable Use of Technology?

Manipulating gene pools to produce a specific result has been used in breeding animals
and agriculture for centuries. Though the same techniques can not, ethically speaking, be used
amongst humans, advances in science and technology has provided the possibility to enhance
human capacities that can be passed down to future generations through the manipulation of
genes. This opens up opportunities to improve public health by eradicating genetic diseases,
removing genetic predispositions towards certain illnesses or ailments, and regulating hormone
imbalances that can improve physical and mental health. Furthermore, genetic manipulation
could even be used for non-medical purposes such as enhancing ones height, strength, beauty,
intelligence, and possibly even eliminating what are considered bad or criminal tendencies.
Despite all of that may come about through these advancements in genetics, there is a
moralistic controversy about humans having the ability to enhance physical or mental
performance, design children, and ambiguously perfecting human nature which is open to
many interpretations and perceptions. To determine whether or not genetic enhancement is an
acceptable use of technology, the arguments of Political Philosopher Michael J. Sandel and
Physician Howard Trachtman will be explored.
Sandel argues that using genetic technology distorts the appreciation of life and
damages the natural relationship between parent and children by producing a market that allows
consumers to customize their genes, enhance their performance, and to design their children,
instead of celebrating the natural differences of each individual. Like anything in the market, not
everyone will be able to afford these enhancements, which will create an even larger divide
between the upper and lower classes. To support this claim, Sandel uses an example of H. Lee
Sweeneys research of muscular dystrophy at the University of Pennsylvania. Sweeneys team
have developed a synthetic gene that prevents and reverses natural muscle deterioration. So
far, it has only been successfully tested on mice, but Sweeney hopes that this synthetic gene will
eventually help those who are afflicted by immobility, particularly the elderly. However, the
research has also caught the attention athletes that wish to improve their performance. Those
athletes that can obtain and afford this synthetic gene when released on the market will have a
significant, competitive advantage to those who cannot, despite hard training and natural
abilities. Another example Sandel uses is the ultrasound, which was originally developed to
detect abnormalities of the fetus. However, it is also often used to reveal the sex of the fetus,
and parents may use this information to abort the fetus if it is an undesired sex, which Sandel
states is common in traditional societies with a powerful cultural preference for boys This
is one way that parents already misuse this technology to design their children, which suggests
that there will be more misuse of genetic technology as it becomes readily available to the
public.

Trachtman argues that genetic technology and enhancement should be embraced

because it is part of the quest towards improving health, but not perfection because it is
important to recognize that perfection can never be truly achieved. Education about appropriate
use of the advances in medical science, fair access to these resources, and surveillance for
unanticipated consequences should be promoted. To support his claim, Trachtman uses the
example of medical enhancements throughout history that have given humans longer life spans;
though it should be celebrated, an unanticipated consequence of longer life spans means more
cancer and dementia. Progress should not be delayed for fear of perfection, because
improvements will always need to be made. Trachtman admits that enhancements can be
abused, but that is definitely not unique to genomics. To support this, Trachtman uses is the
example of how athletes abuse erythropoietin but how it does not detract from the improvement
of patients lives with end stage renal disease.
Michael J. Sandels argument is opinionated and based on personal morals and
convictions rather than reason. Sandels is a political philosopher, which does not make him an
expert in medical technology, health sciences, or genetics. His article was published in The
Atlantic Monthly, which is a general editorial magazine that is not peer reviewed. There was no
testing of Sandels claims, and the examples he used were prospective, unsupported outcomes
and came across as far-fetched and were not well-supported. The potential dangers of
destroying the appreciation of life and the natural relationship between parents and children
through performance enhancement, designing children, and perfecting human nature as a
product of genetic enhancements are not possible with current technology, and may never be
possible since most desired characteristics are not controlled by a single gene and are affected
by many other background factors. The article well-written and organized, but is not a credible
or well-supported argument. Howard Trachtmans argument is also opinionated, but is based on
trends of medical advances made throughout history. Trachtman is a physician, which makes
him a more reliable source in medical technology and advancements than Sandel. His article
was published in The American Journal of Bioethics, which is a peer-reviewed academic journal.
Trachtmans claims could also not be tested, but his support did include medical advancements
and technology advancements of the past and the results that can be seen today from those
advancements, such as unexpected consequences of more damaged low birth weight
survivors as a result of improvements in neonatal care to show that there will always be room
for improvement in medicine and technology. He recognized the expectations, benefits and
downfalls, and limitations of genetic enhancements and medical advancements in general.
Between the two, Trachtman had the more compelling and well-supported argument.
After exploring both Sandels and Trachtmans arguments, I find that genetic
enhancement is not an unacceptable use of technology. I agree with Trachtman that the
benefits of genetic enhancement would outweigh the negative outcomes. Its human nature to
want to improve our own life and our childrens lives, and that this can be the start of the
eradication of genetic diseases, such as Huntingtons disease. Though there will be those who

may abuse genetic enhancements, such as for appearance, studying, or sports, that is no
reason to not seek improving the human condition. For example, how often to athletes abuse
steroids? Does this mean that steroids are bad and should not be used? Patients with
conditions such as vasculitis, myositis, lupus, and other inflammatory conditions have been
treated with steroids and have experienced a better quality of life because of it. Because some
will abuse medicine or medical technology does not make it bad, and certainly does not
outweigh the good it can bring. I agree that education about appropriate use of the advances in
medical science, fair access to these resources, and surveillance for unanticipated
consequences should be promoted. I also agree that humans have a long way to go to perfect
our understanding of genetics and that the quest to improve health will likely never end. From
both a scientific and moralistic point-of-view, I agree that we should never cease progress in
learning and developing technology, especially if it can improve the human condition and overall
quality of life. In conclusion, I am in favor of continuing to research and develop technology for
genetic enhancement.