Comparison to Other Topic

The area that brings up the best comparison is the use of biotechnology in sports. There is a huge potential for the use/misuse of gene therapy by athletes to gain an unfair edge. It would theoretically be possible to receive gene therapy to boost ones performance or decrease recovery time from injuries. For instance a long distance runner may wish to insert a gene into their genome that would aid them in anaerobic metabolism or in the breakdown of lactic acid. This would give them an unfair advantage because they wouldn't get tired as easy and they wouldn't be sore the next day. A sprinter might insert a gene that causes them produce more ATP. This would give them more energy and might correlate to faster times.

However, the same ethical questions are raised that come up with any performance enhancement. Is it right for them to gain an unfair advantage over the rest of the competition. Is it right for them to have abilities that they wouldn't have naturally? These are questions that need to be answered by those in charge of regulating the use of performance enhancing substances. They must consider whether or not they will restrict the use of gene therapy by athletes or leave it as a free for all.

How do these topics differ? For the most part performance enhancement is a choice that an athlete makes to attain a higher level in their respective sport. It is something that they could survive without but something they feel they need. Gene therapy to alleviate genetic diseases is not he same idea. People with genetic diseases are using gene therapy to help them live a normal life and to alleviate the pain and suffering that such diseases cause. While the techniques and procedures would be the same no matter which topic you are talking about the reason behind the decision is completely different.