writing placement essay

7/29/2019 Writing Placement Essay

1/4

That technology continues to grow rapidly is an inevitable truth, but the many

triumphs of technology are usually accompanied by serious moral debate. The case of

genetic engineering and medicine is no exception. In his essay on the distinction between

genetic therapy and enhancement, David Resnik explores the perceptions surrounding

genetic engineering. He argues against the moral line between therapy and enhancement,

stating that neither is inherently ethical or immoral. While he delineates genetic

engineering into separate categories, the essence of his thesis lies in the importance of

evaluating the morality of individual procedures by their results. By extension of

Resniks argument, we might conclude that performance enhancing drugs, gene therapy,

and gene enhancement are not entirely distinct, but are instead linked ideas on the

continuum of human modification which should be judged not by absolute moral

standards but instead by their benefits and harms in various applications and

circumstances. Too suggest that all forms of human modification are arbitrarily

comparable and should not be categorized as therapy or enhancement is excessive; one

cannot easily compare a genetic cure for muscular dystrophy to the use of anabolic

steroids for competitive purposes or the mass implementation of eugenics to reduce

biodiversity. Still, varying human attitudes towards various performance enhancing

drugs and genetic procedures indicate that their morality and acceptability are not directly

correlated with the classification of the modification.

The advancement of medicine is largely responsible for making such

modifications possible. Many medical goals have been met using drugs. According to

Resnik, If we can develop drugs to promote these goals, then why not develop genetic

procedures to meet similar objectives? (Resnik 368) Given that genetic engineering is a


2/4

natural progression from drugs in reaching medical goals, the ethical implications of

performance enhancing drugs are highly relevant to the morality of genetic treatment.

The statistical study conducted by John Sabini and John Monterosso to gauge attitudes

amongst college students towards performance enhancing drugs reveals a disparity in

perception that closely parallels the therapy-enhancement debate. Attention, memory,

and athletic drugs are all more widely tolerated when their effects are strictly interactive

and benefit only those with a clear deficiency or statistical disadvantage. According to

the study:

Participants ... endorsed a version of the interaction view; that is, they thought that

a drug that would benefit anyone who took it, or that would benefit people in the

top 10% of the distribution was unfair and should be banned. They were more

tolerant of a drug that would benefit the bottom 10% only (a normalizer),

especially (though not significantly so) if the people in the bottom 10% also had

physical signs of disability. (Sabini and Monterosso 91)

It is evident from the study that, within the context of performance enhancing drugs,

therapy is viewed as acceptable while enhancement is not. This mirrors the societal view

of genetic engineering. Here, the subjective determination of who needs a drug is

handled in the study by drawing a ten percent line, but in the real world such a line is

greatly blurred. It is much more difficult to objectively determine who requires a drug

and who is taking it for pure enhancement. But this is the most important determination

to make; drugs such as Ritalin or Human Growth Hormone have great medical potential

but can also be used for cosmetic or competitive purposes. Even in cases of cosmetic

enhancement, drugs cannot automaticallybe condemned as immoral. Resnicks


3/4

argument that genetic procedures must be examined based on their results applies to

performance enhancing drugs. Side effects, safety, integrity, and other factors must be

weighed carefully before a normalizing or enhancing drug can be acceptable for use in

any situation.

Of course, genetic engineering is potentially far more impactful than performance

enhancing drugs. Resnik briefly references his criteria for the establishment of a

procedures morality as, whether the intervention poses significant risks, offers

significant benefits, violates or promotes human dignity, is just or unjust (Resnik 374).

Although such concepts are subjective by nature, they are relatively concrete. Again, the

emphasis is on the individual procedure as opposed to a larger subset such as therapy or

enhancement. Michael Sandels article in The Atlantic Monthly is quite comprehensive

but draws the moral line in even more abstract terms. He is even more accepting of

libertarian principles than Resnik in his examination of various hypothetical or current

cases of genetic engineering, refusing to condemn such practices as sex selection,

physical enhancement, and eugenics on the grounds of fairness, freedom, and justice. He

correctly points out that these ideas are ostensibly justifiable by standard arguments.

Instead, his defining criteria are humility, solidarity, responsibility, and appreciation for

the gift of life. His partially theological defense of these values is the reason for his

strong stance against genetic engineering. Sandel claims Eugenics and genetic

engineering represent the one-sided triumph of willfulness over giftedness, of dominion

over reverence, of molding over beholding (Sandel 59). This harsh viewpoint is not

entirely justified. Granted, he is more vocally opposed to genetic enhancement than

therapy, but he portrays most genetic modification as unnatural to the spirit of humanity,


4/4

assuming that humans are more likely to exercise genetic engineering arrogantly than

responsibly. As discussed earlier, performance enhancing drugs and genetic engineering

are mere means of change that can be harnessed ethically or abused immorally. The

values Sandel seeks to protect are all worthy, but they do not stand to suffer degradation

as a direct result of the advancement of genetic technology. Rather, it is up to humans to

fairly grade the ethical merits of any course of action before proceeding in a manner

consistent with the principles of humanity. These principles are not always clear and

certainly open to debate, but mankind stands only to lose if sweeping generalization and

biases limit natural progress.

Resnick breaks genetic engineering into various categories but no action is

automatically exempt from thorough scrutiny by virtue of its general grouping. Terms

such as enhancement and therapy, while practical and relatively accurate for descriptive

purposes, should not hold any intrinsic moral weight. Also, genetic engineering should

be examined alongside performance enhancing drugs as simply another medical solution

to issues of human correction and improvement. Humans have always striven for greater

physical and mental capability, and history has shown the benefits of changes in

nutrition, vaccinations, and other innovations. Modern technology may carry humanity

farther than ever before, but only if it is not stifled or abused, and to that extent a healthy

and continuous debate serves to point the moral compass of society in the right direction.

writing placement essay

Documents