Benner 1

Nate Benner
Biology 1090 9 OClock MWF
Eric Green Taking Sides
October 10, 2014
1. The yes argument believes that genetic enhancement, designer babies, and attempting to
perfect human nature, is a flawed attempt, and that we must go about it another way. The
argument also takes insult to the fact that one would like to change life, as it is a gift.
2. The no argument believes that everyone should embrace genetic enhancement, not as a
way to improve life, but being a non-ending trail of dead ends, and questions. It has
medical application, but no will ever be perfect. This statement wants the readers to
understand that perfection may never be achieved.
3. Two facts from the yes argument.
a. Scientists have developed a synthetic drug that manipulates genes, and stops
muscle deterioration. Used in lab rats, the study has had major results, and
athletes are already trying to get their hands on some.
b. Another study showed that genetic enhancement can help in memory as well.
When tested on both fruit flies and lab rats, the animals showed a lot faster
learning when injected with the synthetic photographic memory gene.
4. Two facts from the No argument.
a. In the 1970s scientists devolvement vaccinations, and antibodies, and believed
that they would soon find cures for all diseases. Smallpox, and polio were going
away during the time, as a result

Benner 2

b. People are reluctant to listen to medical professionals in this country. Even when
it comes to immunizations for horrible diseases, parents sometimes choose to try
alternative methods. Why would genetic enhancement be any different?
5. The opinion of Michael J. Sandel and the yes side, is yes it will help, but there are moral
repercussions. Genetic enhancement would be slapping life across the face. It should be
enough to just exist. Once one person gets genetic enhancement, they all will want it. We
dont need any super humans, and when we all receive genetic enhancement what will
have changed? Well still be average.
6. The opinion of Howard Trachtman, and the no side is, is that it has much more use in
medical practices, not to create super humans. He argues that even with a longer life
span, one will still eventually succumb to diseases such as Alzheimers and cancer.
Ultimately, it will not create the perfect human.
7. Well the entire premise of the essay is kind of misleading. He spends the whole essay
talking about how cool genetic enhancement is, and how well it works. Once the reader is
all excited about genetic enhancement, and the future, then Sandel brings morals into it.
When we have come into our own as evolutionary beings over time, why would we wait
for nature to make enhancements, when we can take our own evolution into our own
hands? Can you imagine how many scientist advancements there would be? We could
create technology to explore the whole universe. Its not immoral its just smart.
8. The idea that even if we prolong our lives, we are still susceptible to disease argument is
a fallacy to me. If we are already using genetic enhancements to improve our lives, why
couldnt we use genetic enhancements to make us immune to those specific diseases?

Benner 3

9. I believe that the yes side is more correct. While he believes that genetic enhancement is
immoral, he presents better facts in the studies of lab rats and fruit flies then the no
argument. While I believe the no argument had an understandable point and premise,
there just wasnt as much backup evidence as there was in the yes argument. While it
wasnt the yes arguments intention to make me excited for genetic enhancement, thats
what it did, and it did it quite well.
10. As stated in the above question, I believe the yes argument presented much better facts
than the no statement. In fact, it was hard to find any claims the no argument made, that
was supported by anything! He just kind of said things happen, and the reader should take
his word for it. In a scientific paper, that is not a good quality at all.
11. Trachtman is just skeptical that people are going to be willing to try out this new miracle
enhancement. He uses the argument that they dont even utilize all drugs that medical
science has to offer in the present. While I agree with his point, I dont know that there is
any way to measure that claim with any analytics. While that doesnt make him invalid, it
doesnt support his claim either. You either take his opinion, or you dont, you cant take
the facts because there arent many to be found.