TAKING SIDES ANALYSIS REPORT (LONG FORM) Name: Kourtney Crump Course: BIOL 1090-006/152 Book: Taking Sides

Issue number: 12 Title of issue: Is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable Use of Technology? 1. Author and major thesis of the Yes side. Michael J Sandel believes that genetic enhancement to enhance power, help create children and all the other things that genetic enhancement does is a failed attempt at human mastery and doesn't make us appreciate life.

2. Author and major thesis of the No side. Howard Trachtman believes the medical community should embrace genetic enhancement as a never-ending quest for human perfection.

3. What fallacies of question-framing are made by the authors of the text? I did not find either of the authors fallacies of the question in any part of either of the arguments besides neither of the men focused on the actual part of the question of whether genetic enhancement was a misuse of technology.

4. Briefly state in your own words two facts presented by each side. Michael J Sandel who chose the 'yes' side to defend focused a lot on the way that people would mistreat the chance to get genetic enhancement. 1. Sandel spoke of how athletes and other professionals would use genetic enhancement to make them a little bit stronger, or taller, in order to make more money. 2. Sandel also mentioned that with genetic enhancement parents would do much of the same thing that athletes are doing by trying to create the 'perfect child' which would ruin the way that we treat people and the miracle of a child wouldn't be as great as it has been for so long. Trachtman, who focused on the 'no' side of the question focused on the idea that no matter what has made a person the way they are, they are still a man. 1. He tries to show that with genetic enhancement medical teams can help cure so many illnesses that have killed so many people. 2. Trachtman also shows that doctors would not just allow everyone in sight to use genetic enhancement, they would have to have a real reason as to why they need it.

6. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the Yes side as you can. Sandel doesn't focus on the actually technology part of the issue, he focuses on the way that being able to create a human would be so unmoral, however he doesn't have any resources that he uses to show facts of any of his arguments.

7. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the No side as you can. Trachtman like Sandel doesn't focus on the actual question of the technology aspect of the question, however other than that I didn't find anything else in Trachtman's article.

8. All in all, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in presenting his or her thesis? Why? Throughout the whole article, the one that impressed me most was Howard Tractman focusing on the no side of the issue with his article 'A Man Is a Man Is a Man'. I felt this way because unlike Sandel, Tractman did have many references throughout his essay telling of what doctors, or other professionals had said or witnessed about the subject. As well as having a very practical side, Tractman also tied in emotions when speaking of how diseases could be cured or helped with genetic enhancement.

9. Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased? If so, why do they have these biases? The writers of these articles could be biased because of their beliefs, such as if they were religious, it could greatly bias if they felt it was okay to create a 'test tube child.' Bias' could also be made for the no side of this argument if a family had had a history of problems conceiving children, or with a disease that could be fixed by genetic enhancement.

10. Which side (Yes or No) do you personally feel is most correct now that you have reviewed the material in these articles? Why? I feel as though the no side is the most correct of these articles because it has actually facts from experienced doctors, scientist etc. Not only do I feel like Tractman is right because of the facts he presents, but I also feel as though if there is a way that we could help someone in life, by curing a disease, or allowing them to have a child, why would we stop that person from being the happiest person they could be? I strongly agree with Tractman that genetic enhancement is an amazing discovery that can help so many people in completely different ways.