You are on page 1of 2

Kaytlynne Gray BIOL 1090 Issue 12 Questions: First Article: Against Genetic Enhancement Summarize the major thesis.

-The major thesis is that genetic enhancement diminishes our appreciation the gift of life. Briefly state in your own words three facts presented. -Fact 1: In regards to genetic enhancement, it can easily be turned from a therapeutic procedure into a business. This is backed by several examples with muscle, memory and height enhancement. -Fact 2: Genetic enhancement can easily be turned into an arms race which can become detrimental to human beings. -Fact 3: Genetic enhancement threatens to banish our appreciation of life as a gift. Briefly state in your own words two opinions presented. -The main opinion of the article is that genetic enhancement destroys appreciation for life. Another strong opinion is that genetic enhancement can easily be turned for profit rather than progress. Briefly identify as many fallacies as you can. -In reality, anything that can be proven untrue can be seen as a fallacy. In this article, nothing could really be concretely proven true or untrue. The author did well to back his statements with related examples though. Identify in your own words the propaganda techniques used, if any (mention the actual propaganda statement). -I didnt see much propaganda. Much of what was stated was backed with an explanation or example to solidify the statements made against genetic enhancement. However, the author did well to emphasize the competitive American lifestyle of constantly striving for success as an argument against genetic enhancement throughout the article. What cause/effect relationships were stated or implied by the author? -The cause and effect relationship implied and sometimes openly stated by the author is the American lifestyle (our competitive, perfectionistic society) and the effect that will have on turning genetic enhancement into a business. Second Article: Pro- Genetic Enhancement Summarize the major thesis. -The major thesis in this article is the idea that enhancement isnt a mastery of genetics, it is simply another medical advancement for humanity.

Briefly state in your own words three facts presented. -Fact 1: Early ideas of perfection in history are constantly being proven untrue and progression is a never ending cycle -Fact 2: Yes, human beings will abuse genetic enhancement just as weve abused many other advancements that came about from good intentions -Fact 3: Humans are unpredictable and must be treated on more of an individual basis. Briefly state in your own words two opinions presented. -The main opinion is that genetic enhancement should be treated as though it is a medical advancement. Another strong opinion is that progress should not be feared and genetic enhancement is simply progress. Briefly identify as many fallacies as you can (not just the type, mention the actual fallacy). ( -The argument for this article isnt nearly as strong as the argument against genetic enhancement, however rather than backed by example this article has direct references and is much more technical than the other article; although neither can be proven or disproven at this point in time. Identify in your own words the propaganda techniques used, if any (mention the propaganda statement). -The author used rhetorical questioning and historical referencing as an effective propaganda technique to argue that genetic enhancement is an acceptable medical advancement. What cause/effect relationships were stated or implied by the author? -A cause an effect relationship implied by the author would be genetic enhancement doing well to teach proper utilization of progress in the medical field and effect humanity in a way that benefits us in the future. Final stand: Which of the two sides (yes or no) is more biased? Provide reasons. -To me, personally, the second article appeared to be more biased because it didnt always rely on factual examples. It more-so implied that genetic enhancement is a good idea based on the authors idea that it is. Which of the two sides (yes or no) is more empirical? Provide reasons. -The argument against genetic enhancement used factual examples and references to reason against genetic enhancement, therefore it seemed more empirical to me. Which of the sides do you side with and why - explain with details. -Personally, I side against genetic enhancement. I agree that it would depreciate life as a gift. That being said, I think it reckless to hinder scientific advancement. I see that genetic enhancement has more harms to humanity than benefits but the good progression that comes from it shouldnt be ignored either.