Is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable Use of Technology?
Samantha Candland
October 15, 2014
Humans have come far when it comes to advancements in medical technology. Since the dawn of
time people have been trying to find more and more ways to assist living beings in developing a long and
lasting life, eliminating the problems that come with many diseases and uncovering new ways to treat
ailments that are prevalent in their time. In fact, humans have become so advanced in the medical field
that they are beginning to dabble in the manipulating specific genetic codes from ages as early as prebirth. These advancements could soon be capable of modifying genetics that alter aspects of an individual
ranging anywhere from their memory to what sex they are born as. Though these developments have
assisted humans to understand different parts of biology, are these enhancements really an acceptable use
of medical technology?
Political philosopher Michael J. Sandel disagrees and believes that genetic manipulation takes
away from the very cores of parenthood, human understanding, and that which is life in general. Sandel is
not ignorant to the fact these biotechnological developments were meant to treat and cure people of
diseases and illnesses, but believes that these advancements are treatments that can be easily immoral.
Sandel states, “What began as an attempt to treat a disease or prevent a genetic disorder now beckons as
an instrument of improvement and consumer choice.” (Sandel, 2004) Sandel believes that muscle
treatments, though meant for reversing deterioration, might be used by professional athletes to advance
their careers, and that developments in higher capabilities in memory might significantly separate those in
poverty and classes that can afford such advancements. He argues that inevitably selfishness will creep
over those who are able to pay for these genetic modifications, creating an imbalance in societies and a
lack of appreciation for that which is life. He also says the same goes for parents and their offspring.
When a parent has the option of possibly modifying their child to be exactly what they want in an
offspring, they are taking away from the concept of what it means to be a loving parent. The child is
treated more as an object or property for the parent’s own satisfaction.
Physician Howard Trachtman does not, however, argue against genetic manipulation and believes
that not only can it have a positive outcome in the medical community, but it is not as easily abused as
people like Sandel might believe it to be. Trachtman states it is not about winners and losers, but that
advancing genetically is “a hard wired human trait that we all engage in.” (Trachtman, 2005) He suggests
in his piece that no individual will ever reach perfection because it is simply impossible to create a perfect
set of genes through medical enhancements. He also argues that is not the place of a doctor to necessarily
judge whether or not a person should be allowed the procedures because “the boundaries are blurred by
rapid advances in medical therapeutics and the definition of disease itself.” (Trachtman, 2005)
The major question these two articles pose is where should the line be drawn when it comes to
genetic development for the evolution of humans as a whole versus unnecessary individual enhancement?
It seems that both authors are aware that without genetic modification humans would not be able to use
items such as stem cells and bone marrow to prevent diseases like certain types of cancer, and Sandel’s
article contains more information on the problems associated with biotechnology. Trachtman seems to
mostly avoid the disadvantages, which leads me to further believe Sandel’s argument has more validity
and that viewpoint is the one from which everybody should see genetics.
There is a fine line that can be easily crossed when it comes to modifying a person’s genes, and as
humans have progressed over the last 100 years it can be argued that they have been more prone to
abusing medical technology for superfluous reasons and selfish gain. In earlier societies people were not
able to get Botox or choose the sex of their children, revising the genetic codes nature handed them.
Instead, they were forced to play the cards they were dealt and appreciate life for what it was and forever
would be for them. As Sandel states, there is a concern that enhancements could create two classes of
human beings. (Sandel, 2004) There would be the average people who cannot afford access to
modifications and are stuck in the natural mode of Darwinism, and then there would be those who can
afford treatments, crossing the barriers of what it means to be a living being and the natural aspects that
come with it. Neither author came out and used the phrase “playing God”, but that is exactly what is
happening when people are choosing to disrupt the natural order of life and health.
One could say that argument would mean that people should not try to strive for overall
healthcare and should let what is be exactly what it is, which is only partially accurate. Yes, people should
be more accepting of who and what they are, but as stated earlier it is natural to seek necessary medical
care when the situation calls for it. The key word in that sentence is “necessary”, which is something
people overlook or exploit. The early 20th century held a lot of experimentation with eugenics, primarily
here in the United States. The government was hooked on this idea of creating a race of dominant
individuals and sterilizing and eliminating those with imperfect genes. This obviously did not work,
which meant that the tests, experiments, and cruelly isolating “unworthy” individuals was a failure
because it utterly could not be done. Even Trachtman’s article it says that experience teaches us that we
will never meet our goals so people will always be striving for more (Trachtman, 2005), leaving this
cloud of dissatisfaction to constantly be looming over the human race. People will continue to be upset
with the fact that their pigment is not light or dark enough, or that their metabolism is too slow so they
cannot overindulge on food at dinner time. This race to be able to cure every physical or mental problem
in the world just perpetuates this cycle of unhappiness with what is, leaving an infinite lack of
appreciation for the very basics of what makes life so unique and extraordinary.
Unless the case absolutely calls for a medical procedure to protect the person, or any living being
for that matter, it should not be performed. To constantly be in search of something grander than what is
just causing humans to separate themselves from the natural balance in life. This has already caused
issues from rapid climate change to the abnormal extinction of creatures because people insist that they
need all of everything for tangible gain. To be oppressive of natural human characteristics and seek a
never ending change takes away from what it means to be a human; people are flawed, and that is a fact
of life. Once people are willing to accept that certain things should only come in moderation, society can
begin to advance in ways that only make it stronger. Nobody will ever be completely perfect and no
society will ever be completely equal, regardless of whether you view it through a biological or a
sociological lens. Dropping the imperfect pursuit of perfection will do nothing but cause humans to be
human again, advancing society in the way it was biologically meant to.
Works Cited
Sandel, M. J. (2004). The Case Against Perfection. The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 293, no. 3.
Trachtman, H. (2005). A Man Is a Man Is a Man. The American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 5 , 31-33.
Reflection:
This is a project that allowed me to voice my opinion on a subject I feel very passionately about: The
manipulation of genetics for personal dominance. It was nice to see both sides of the coin when it comes
to genetic manipulation and to catch a glimpse of why a person might deem it moral or necessary to
utilize. I was also pleased that I got a chance to publicly express why I do not agree with genetic
enhancements in society. I feel as though I do well when I am asked to express my mindset on a subject
through writing rather than speaking or through quizzes. It gives me the opportunity to iron out the kinks
and really get down to what actually pleases or displeases me with the subject.