Anyone who cares about the moral and social implications of genomics, genetic engineering and biotechnology should read Michael J. Sandel’s article, ‘The Case Against Perfection’, in the April 2004 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. Sandel, the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University (where he teaches moral philosophy), is one of the deepest thinkers of this generation. He is a member of The President’s Council on Bioethics, which George W. Bush established to make recommendations concerning stem-cell research, among other issues. In this essay, with. | Comment The Ascent of Man Gregory A Petsko Address Rosenstiel Basic Medical Sciences Research Center Brandeis University Waltham MA 02454-9110 USA. E-mail petsko@ Published 26 April 2004 Genome Biology 2004 5 106 The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at http 2004 5 5 106 2004 BioMed Central Ltd Anyone who cares about the moral and social implications of genomics genetic engineering and biotechnology should read Michael J. Sandel s article The Case Against Perfection in the April 2004 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. Sandel the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University where he teaches moral philosophy is one of the deepest thinkers of this generation. He is a member of The President s Council on Bioethics which George W. Bush established to make recommendations concerning stem-cell research among other issues. In this essay with characteristically clear and penetrating analysis he argues that the genomic revolution has induced a kind of moral vertigo and that we are right to be troubled by such issues as human cloning and genetic engineering for improved human characteristics and performance. He dissects four examples of the use of our new-found power of biotechnology muscle enhancement memory enhancement growth-hormone treatment and reproductive technologies that allow parents to choose the sex and some genetic traits of their children. In each case he concludes that such use is morally objectionable. Strong words but he defends them with tight logic and a thorough examination of the history and purpose of the technology. His grasp of the science is sound and he manages for the most part to skirt the use of religious principles which he acknowledges vary from religion to religion and even within religions - consider the views of fundamentalist Christians versus those of more moderate Protestants on the subject of abortion relying instead on pitting what he terms
