essay about the exploratory paper

Jamal Hammond

Professor Wood

English 101

17 March 2012

Just Say No to Biotechnology

The debate over athletes’ use of performance-enhancing substances is getting more complicated as biotechnologies such as gene therapy becomes a greater reality. For example, Lance Armstrong evaded judges’ inquiries and blood tests, only to admit that he did use gene therapy to boost his performance. Is this ethically correct? The availability of these new methods of boosting performance will force the public to decide what we value most in sports: physical excellence through hard work or victory at all costs. The issue is, should biotechnology be banned from competition for its negative impact off and on the field of sports? All three sources answer “yes.” They believe that we should take the attitude of just say no to biotechnology, yet they come at their argument from three different perspectives. All three sources take the side that biotechnology should be banned from competition, although with three different perspectives.—Thesis Statement.

First of all, Gregory Lamb argues that biotechnology can be beneficial for only people who are afflicted by certain medical conditions. His perspective on the issue is medical. He argues that there is a breakthrough for medical research for humans, but it does not pan out for athletes. “He explains that cures for diseases like Parkinson’s and muscular dystrophy, have led scientists at the University of Pennsylvania to create larger-than-life mice, rodents that grow larger than normal muscles after receiving injections with a gene that stimulates growth protein. In addition, the studies find that a combination of gene manipulation and exercise led to almost 50% increase in the rats’ leg muscles” (“Will Gene-Altered”). As Lamb reports, the experiments are done on mice and have proven to help those with muscular disorders, but he affirms to his readers that although small animals may benefit, it does not hold true for athletes. Over all his evidence is effective is affirming his medical perspective on this issue. Beside a medical perspective on the issue, there is of course the ethical perspective. Linking Sentence

In addition, exploring the issue from an overall ethical standpoint is Sally Jenkins. Jenkins examines and weighs the cost vs. benefit of biotechnology to the world of competition. Sally Jenkins argues at what cost to the integrity of athletic competition is it worth taking all of this gene technology. She points out that athletes who use medical technology to alter their bodies can bypass the hard work of training by taking on the powers of a machine, but at what moral and ethical cost. Even if they win she points out, the fans will lose out on the opportunity to witness sports as a spectacle of human effort and honest hard work (“The First Item”). Her overall ethical perspective underscores that athletes can set new records this way with gene therapy, but fair play is blown out the window. Her audience, readers of the Washington Post, which tend to be on the conservative side of this issue, thereby her tone and perspective on this issue is appropriate for the readers of the Washington Post. Furthermore there is the legal perspective. Linking sentence.

Lastly, the issue of biotechnology and gene therapy is viewed by Clare Rudebeck from the legal perspective. Clare Rudebeck examines the legal perspective in her article by arguing that sports rely on equal conditions to ensure fair play, from regulations that demand similar equipment to referees who evenhandedly apply the rules to all participants. If the rules that guarantee an even playing field are violated, competitors and fans are deprived of a lawful and fair athletic effort and accomplishment” (The Eyes”). Rudebeck emphasizes that athletes who use gene therapy to alter their bodies and enhance their performance will create an uneven playing field, thus upsetting a fair power play.

Therefore, from a medical, ethical, and legal perspective, gene therapy should be banned from the playing field. There is no doubt that medical research will continue to help people with major muscular diseases, but not for athletes. Also, ethically, it is a no brainer: at what cost will dishonestly have on the players, fans, and the sport itself. Finally, fans are entitled to a level playing field and not one dominated by the powerful gene therapy. Overall all three sources present an effective argument using evidence that makes sense for their particular perspective and audience.

Works Cited

Jenkins, Sally. “The First Item in a Pandora’s Box of Moral Ambiguities.” Washington

Post 4 Dec. 2011: D11. Print.

Annotated Bibliography: include a 3-4 sentence summary of this article.

Lamb, Gregory. “Will Gene-Altered Athletes Kill Sports?” Christian Science Monitor

23 Aug. 2011: 12-13. Print.

Annotated Bibliography: include a 3-4 sentence summary of this article.

Rudebeck, Clare. “The Eyes Have It.” Independentnews.com. Independent News and

Media, 27 Nov. 2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2012.

Annotated Bibliography: include a 3-4 sentence summary of this article.

The annotated bibliography is 1” from the left margin—it is a three-to-four sentence summary of each of the sources.