Suarez1

Oscar H. Suarez Professor Kavitha Damal BIOL 1090 E-portfolio Assignment 17 February 2013 Taking Sides # 12: Is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable Use of Technology? 1. On the YES side 1.1 The major thesis The political philosopher Michael J. Sandel argues that there is a moral problem when genetic technology is used to enhance the human nature looking for perfection. It is the attempt of manipulate and try to master what we are making it different, and look as a benefit for the society. 1.2 Three facts presented 1.2.1 There are different ways to improve human health. Science can develop other paths to make human wellness better without compromise it at genetic levels. 1.2.2 The knowledge of genetics we have now will lead us to change, manipulate, and reinvent our own human nature. 1.2.3 What was intended to improve athletic performance or health amelioration based on genetic manipulation is used now for consumerism purposes and achievement of perfection. Supplements for growth, reproduction,

memory and muscles are presented to manipulate human nature.

Suarez2

1.3 Two opinions presented 1.3.1 Human enhancing treatments would be very expensive. Only the people capable to afford them would have access to them 1.3.2 If these technologies would be approved to be used. There is no guarantee that their distribution would be fair knowing that money, and economic interests would prevail over equality. 1.4 Fallacies 1.4.1 Life is not a gift for those people without theological beliefs. They can accept non-traditional practices as an acceptable use of these technologies 1.4.2 Hormonal arms race happens even without the help of genetic enhancement. 1.4.3 Animal and plants are created to serve on human purposes

1.5 Propaganda techniques used The author appeals to the emotional words, and throw his best argument to support his points of view without give enough information about the opposite angle. 1.6 Cause/effect relationships 1.6.1 Emergence of two kinds of human beings: Enhanced humans and natural humans dividing the specie in two sub-species. 1.6.2 Muscles would be not only repaired, they would be also strengthen to take athletes into a competitive end. 1.6.3 Medical science would lead technological advances into the mastery of human race on genetics.

Suarez3

2. On the NO side 2.1 The major thesis The physician Howard Trachtman states that enhancement is a never ending quest improving human health. He states that using genetic technology human race would embrace enhancement of its health. 2.2 Three facts presented 2.2.1 Because a treatment becomes available does not mean that it would be accepted for humanity, or assimilated by them to be used. People are cautious about new medical practices. 2.2.2 People look for quick fixes to medical problems that take long treatments to be corrected. 2.2.3 The abuse of medicaments for athletes does not detract the use of the same substance for treatments of patients that really need them to qualitative improve. 2.3 Two opinions presented 2.3.1 People must not fear what the future will bring. However, humanity does it because there are always things to fear and overpass. 2.3.2 People should accept enhancement at genetic levels as they do with other ways of self improvement.

Suarez4

2.4 Fallacies 2.4.1 Physicians and bioethicists should have unrealistic views about innovative therapeutic interventions. 2.4.2 2.4.3 The author reference to a group of individuals as everyone. Assumption that genetic enhancement would not lead to create other problems or make those we have more complex.

2.5 Propaganda techniques used The author claims that we can always improve health, but not reach perfection. He is claiming that people should act or think in certain way depending on a high social standard.

2.6 Cause/effect relationship 2.6.1 Solve a question regarding about a medical challenge will generate more questions for the population, benefit, risks, and effective results. 2.6.2 Development of genetic enhancement will bring r challenges and complications making it complex process, and a never-ending quest to health improvement. 3. Final stand 3.1 Which side is more biased? Trachtman presents more biased overtones without support his ideas on philosophical concepts or examples that can be adjusted to reality. Therefore, his

Suarez5

points of view standing from his physician experience match an open mind essential to achieve new advances in technology. Sandel on the other hand considers the other point of view, and presents pros and cons of genetic enhancement. He also supports his claims with experiences that can be tested and observed. He supports his beliefs based on lack of ethic principles could conduce the supposed solution to the generation of more unexpected issues. 3.2 Which side is more empirical? The position of Sandel is more empirical than Trachtman is. He supports his ideas remarking the moral implications of genetic enhancement technologies. He also presents a large amount of sources for his claims. Trachtman just supports his ideas on theories. 3.3 Which side? I support the development of genetic enhancement. I agree with many claims of Tachtman because in the future we are going to need these technologies. Genetic enhancement could be used under strict laws and regulations. Sandals points of view remark what should be avoided to make of these technologies the door for improve our specie, and make it better. It would be very useful to eradicate undesirable diseases and genetic anomalies. The last word about this topic will be given by our descendants because we are just preparing the path for great opportunities for the human race. The use of these technologies will determine a new beginning or simply an undesirable end.