Attachment III - Page 6 
( 2 ) 
its most succinct context when he asks "When does a repaired or manufac- 
tured man stop being a man. ..and become a robot, an object, an industrial 
product?" 
The debate over genetic engineering is similar to the debate over nuclear 
power. For years the nuclear proponents argued that the potential benefits 
of nuclear power outweighed the potential harm. Today an increasingly 
skeptical public has begun to seriously question this basic presumption. 
In a similar vein, proponents of human genetic engineering argue that the 
benefits outweigh the risks and that it would be irresponsible not to use this 
powerful new technology to eliminate serious "genetic disorders." The New 
York Times editorial board correctly addressed this conventional scientific 
argument by concluding in its editorial that once the scientists are able to 
repair genetic defects "it will become much harder to argue against adding 
genes that confer desired qualities, like better health, looks or brains." 
According to the Times , "There is no discernible line to be drawn between 
making inheritable repairs of genetic defects, and improving the species." 
Once we decide to begin the process of human genetic engineering, there is 
really no logical place to stop. If diabetes, sickle cell anemia, and cancer 
are to be cured by altering the genetic make-up of an individual, why not 
proceed to other "disorders:" myopia, color blindness, left handedness. 
Indeed, what is to preclude a society from deciding that a certain skin color 
is a disorder? 
[ 321 ] 
