<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?issn=0021-9738&volume=117&issue=10&page=2739">http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?issn=0021-9738&volume=117&issue=10&page=2739</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<HR>
<P>Sandel has written a fine, short book that is well worth the time of the
casual reader or the reader in a bioethics class. Although he does not break new
ground, he provides an excellent synthesis of the arguments for and against
genetic enhancement. Despite his liberal leanings, his sympathies are apparent
from the title.</P>
<P>Sandel is a professor of political philosophy at Harvard University, known
for his work on liberalism and justice. In a development he did not anticipate,
he was appointed to the President’s Council on Bioethics. An accidental tourist
to bioethics, Sandel brought his on-the-job training back to the academy where
he team-taught a course, “Ethics, biotechnology, and the future of human
nature,” with Douglas Melton, a well-regarded Harvard stem cell biologist. This
book is an offshoot of that course.</P>
<P>Sandel believes that parents have a duty to promote their children’s
excellence. He recognizes that they both do and overdo this already with the use
of Ritalin, orthodontics, and Scholastic Aptitude Test coaches as well as in
many other material ways. Yet, he asks, if it is permissible and even admirable
for parents to help their children in these ways, why isn’t it equally admirable
for parents to use whatever genetic technologies may emerge to enhance their
children’s intelligence, musical ability, appearance, or athletic skill? An
emerging group of liberal eugenicists believe that eugenic measures, such as
embryo selection, are unobjectionable and may be morally required as long as the
benefits and burdens are fairly distributed throughout society. Legal
philosopher Ronald Dworkin (quoted by Sandel) stated, “If playing God means
struggling to improve our species, bringing into our conscious designs a
resolution to improve whatever God deliberately or nature blindly has evolved
over eons, then the first principles of ethical individualism command the
struggle.” But despite his willingness to explore arguments pro and con, Sandel
is no liberal eugenicist. Rather, he argues that eugenic parenting is
objectionable because it shows a misunderstanding of our place in creation and
confuses our role with God’s. This was the error of Prometheus.
<HR>
</P></DIV></BODY></HTML>