In Michael J. Sandel’s essay, “The Case Against Perfection,” he believes that although genetic
enhancements may have great medical purpose, it is inevitable that humans will use these methods for
nonmedical and self improving purposes causing to dissolve humans’ appreciation for “life as a gift.”
Sandel does a good job of presenting some good facts about the development of the synthetic gene,
which was shown to both repair and strengthen muscles. He also stated the fact that scientists have
been able to manipulate a memory-linked gene in both flies and mice. This manipulation was shown to
be passed onto the offspring of these species. Finally, Sandel also noted that human growth hormone
has been used on children with hormone deficiency. His essay is full of many of his own opinions, but
two of which I feel he states very clearly includes; his opinion that genetic engineering and
enhancements will “destroy” humans’ appreciation for individual’s personal powers and achievements,
and that genetic enhancements would “disfigure” the parent-child relationship, in that parents would
lose their humanity and sympathy which only would be taught through the unbridled development of
their children. Fallacies I found in this essay include; subspecies of humans will be created as a result of
genetic engineering, implying that those who use genetic enhancements would be taxed to compensate
those who could not afford enhancements, abortions have become a widespread common practice in
societies who prefer male children over females, and the genetic revolution is the reason we are
tempted to enhance, design and perfect the human race. The propaganda techniques used in this essay
include “name calling” and “pinpointing the enemy.” Some examples of name calling I found include
Sandel’s use of the words “sports-crazed” and “overbearing” to describe parents who would choose to
use genetic enhancements on their children. This technique makes a reader feel like if they would
choose to use genetic enhancements on their children, they too would be classified as the negative
terms, “sports-crazed” or “overbearing,” subconsciously persuading them to side against genetic
enhancements. Pinpointing the enemy is a clear technique used throughout the essay in which Sandel
sets up supporters of genetic enhancements to be viewed as “morally wrong” giving the reader a simple
decision of choosing between “right and wrong.” Both of these propaganda techniques would prove to
be effective on readers who would base their opinion on emotion. Some cause and effect scenarios
implied by Sandel include; that the use of human genetic enhancements would cause two subspecies of
humans to develop: the wealthy enhanced and the poor natural, those who could not afford genetic
enhancement would feel in superior thus creating a “hormonal arms race,” the use of genetic
enhancements would cause the human race to lose their appreciation for life, and the use of genetic
enhancements would cause parents to not appreciate their children.
In Dr. Howard Trachtman’s essay, “A Man Is a Man Is a Man,” he supports his opinion that
genetic enhancements should be embraced by everyone as a tool to improve our health and to
recognize that it is only a part of our history because science is always developing and improving, but
perfection will never be achieved. Dr. Trachtman briefly notes the fact that in the 1970s immunizations
and antibiotics became standard. He also defines the term “enhancement” as an improvement and
correlates this to the purpose of doctors, as one of the main goals of a doctor is to “improve” the patient
they care for. Finally, he mentions the survey which showed that recently American’s have been
reluctant to trust medical opinion. Dr Trachtman personally believes that because there will always be
positive and negative outcomes to development of any kind there should be no fear of enhancement or
limit its possibilities. He also believes that the debate over acceptable and unacceptable purposes for
taking medication of any kind is not a black and white matter. Dr. Trachtman feels that the line is very
blurry between patients who “need” prescription drug and patients who only want the drug for personal
reasons. He explains that doctors only want to help their patients without having to decide whether
their reason for needing help is acceptable or unacceptable. A fallacy I discovered in Dr. Trachtman’s
essay was in his statements explaining that when seeking treatment, patients do not think or care about
their health care provider’s motivations; they only care about improving their health. He also states that
doctors do not question why patients are seeking help just as long as they follow doctor’s orders. These
are both assumptions and not supported by any facts. The propaganda technique used in this essay is
“card stacking” and “glittering generalities.” Card stacking is when the author only presents positive
information supporting their viewpoint while not talking about the opposing side or negative
information. Dr. Trachtman’s essay did this very well; a reader would not be able to make an educated
decision based on only positive information. These fare well when trying to persuade an audience that
your side is correct. He also used glittering generalities, or positive words, for example, “therapeutic
interventions” and “remarkable advances,” to help readers to subconsciously associate his opinion with
a positive.
After reading essays from both political philosopher Michael J Sandel and physician Howard
Trachtman it is clear that they have opposite views on the issue of whether genetic enhancement is an
unacceptable use of technology. This question is not a hypothesis which can be tested and measured
scientifically because it is a moral question based on personal opinion. Considering each of the author’s
background, it would be difficult for either author to present a completely objective point of view. Based
on a definition that bias is an opinion with prejudicial influence, I believe that Michael Sandel’s essay has
more bias than Howard Trachtman’s essay. Sandel’s opinion that genetic enhancement is unacceptable
is based on his moral belief that humans will not appreciate life as a gift. Dr. Trachtman believes that
there are far too many scientific benefits in the development of genetic engineering to limit research
because of fear of personal misuse. Dr. Trachtman is a medical doctor skilled in using the scientific
method. In his essay he supports his opinion with research and sites his sources. I believe that Dr.
Trachtman’s opinion is more empirical. When discussing scientific developments and research, Dr.
Trachtman references his direct observation as a physician and sites others’ research and experience
when commenting on how the technology may be used. Based on my readings, I agree with Dr. Howard
Trachtman. I agree with his argument that it should not be up to individuals to decide whether medical
advancement should be limited. A personal choice about how prescription drugs are used, while
certainly unwise and potentially dangerous if the individual does not follow recommendations, is exactly
that, a personal choice. The question “is genetic enhancement an unacceptable use of technology?”
would not be a testable hypothesis because whether something is acceptable or unacceptable is
immeasurable. If a correlational study was done, the results would always be reflective of sampling error
because people will have different opinions based on their personal experiences and no two people
have the same experiences in life. Statistics would show that no matter the scientific design, the sample
would always prove to be insignificant. Science is always evolving and changing. Medical advancements
are being made that are saving people’s lives. Dr. Trachtman used an example of the great medical
advancements in antibiotics and how vaccinations have almost completely eliminated some diseases.
However, people still have a choice about whether or not they vaccinate their child. Using this example,
scientific advancement has not eliminated the rights of parents or individuals to choose. Morality is a
perspective subject, but if I am asked to make a personal choice, I will tend to trust a qualified
researcher (such as a medical doctor) and empirical evidence over anecdotal evidence that may be
biased.