Biology 1090
Biology 1090
Kavitha Damal-Instructor
Cauleen Hansen
September 28th, 2012
Taking Sides Issue 12: Is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable Use of Technology?
Yes side:
The major thesis is: Genetic enhancement is wrong. Parents should not be able to basically “custom order” their children.
Three facts presented are: Scientists created fruit flies that had memories that were photographic. Memory Pharmaceuticals are working on memory enhancing drugs. Doctors can issue drugs to people for purposes that are not always approved with by the FDA.
Two opinions presented are: Everyone wants to be healed from their diseases is one opinion. Another is that genetic enhancement should not be allowed and is a bad decision.
The fallacies are: Not everyone wants to be healed, and not everyone would use the enhancements for evil purposes.
The propaganda techniques used were: The author tried to make parents feel guilty for wanting to genetically manipulate their children's genes. He also used words like “intrusive” and “sinister” in order to incite fear in people.
The cause/effect relationships stated by the author were: If genetic enhancement is allowed, only the wealthy will have access to the technology, and if it is allowed, then there will be different species of humans.
No side:
The major thesis is: Genetic enhancement is a wonderful thing to happen. It will help scientists cure and heal the sick and injured in the world.
Three facts presented are: Some are for genetic enhancement, others are not. Immunizations are common practice in today's world. Some parent's refuse to vaccinate their kids.
Two opinions presented: Everyone wants to bring their status up in the world. People living longer will be more likely to get cancer.
The fallacies are: It presents an almost utopian view of what life would be like with genetic enhancement. Some would use this technology for terrible purposes.
The propaganda techniques used were: The author presented a very rosy view of genetic manipulation while glossing over any bad parts about it. He used the word enhancement quite a bit.
Final summary:
The yes side is more biased.
The no side is more empirical.
I side with:
The no side. I feel that genetic enhancement could be a wonderful thing to have. I know I would have liked for my family members to have not had cancer. I would have liked to have not had endured a heart transplant. Yes, some people are going to use it for evil purposes. Yes, probably only the wealthy will have access to it-in the beginning. I know eventually everyone will have access to the technology just like with everything else.
Reflection statement: This was an interesting subject to do, and I found myself feeling conflicted while reading both sides. I decided that ultimately, genetic enhancement would be a terrific use of our resources. Technology always has made life easier and harder, but I feel this would be great. Our species would not have evolved without genes becoming better and more resilient, if we have the technology why not use it? Maybe there would also be more love in the world if people were happy with how they looked and others were happy with how others looked. It could, possibly, eliminate bullying in schools, violence in the streets, and make people live longer, happier lives.
Kavitha Damal-Instructor
Cauleen Hansen
September 28th, 2012
Taking Sides Issue 12: Is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable Use of Technology?
Yes side:
The major thesis is: Genetic enhancement is wrong. Parents should not be able to basically “custom order” their children.
Three facts presented are: Scientists created fruit flies that had memories that were photographic. Memory Pharmaceuticals are working on memory enhancing drugs. Doctors can issue drugs to people for purposes that are not always approved with by the FDA.
Two opinions presented are: Everyone wants to be healed from their diseases is one opinion. Another is that genetic enhancement should not be allowed and is a bad decision.
The fallacies are: Not everyone wants to be healed, and not everyone would use the enhancements for evil purposes.
The propaganda techniques used were: The author tried to make parents feel guilty for wanting to genetically manipulate their children's genes. He also used words like “intrusive” and “sinister” in order to incite fear in people.
The cause/effect relationships stated by the author were: If genetic enhancement is allowed, only the wealthy will have access to the technology, and if it is allowed, then there will be different species of humans.
No side:
The major thesis is: Genetic enhancement is a wonderful thing to happen. It will help scientists cure and heal the sick and injured in the world.
Three facts presented are: Some are for genetic enhancement, others are not. Immunizations are common practice in today's world. Some parent's refuse to vaccinate their kids.
Two opinions presented: Everyone wants to bring their status up in the world. People living longer will be more likely to get cancer.
The fallacies are: It presents an almost utopian view of what life would be like with genetic enhancement. Some would use this technology for terrible purposes.
The propaganda techniques used were: The author presented a very rosy view of genetic manipulation while glossing over any bad parts about it. He used the word enhancement quite a bit.
Final summary:
The yes side is more biased.
The no side is more empirical.
I side with:
The no side. I feel that genetic enhancement could be a wonderful thing to have. I know I would have liked for my family members to have not had cancer. I would have liked to have not had endured a heart transplant. Yes, some people are going to use it for evil purposes. Yes, probably only the wealthy will have access to it-in the beginning. I know eventually everyone will have access to the technology just like with everything else.
Reflection statement: This was an interesting subject to do, and I found myself feeling conflicted while reading both sides. I decided that ultimately, genetic enhancement would be a terrific use of our resources. Technology always has made life easier and harder, but I feel this would be great. Our species would not have evolved without genes becoming better and more resilient, if we have the technology why not use it? Maybe there would also be more love in the world if people were happy with how they looked and others were happy with how others looked. It could, possibly, eliminate bullying in schools, violence in the streets, and make people live longer, happier lives.