As we have seen, an increasing number of philosophers and scientists argue that we should use (or should at least not be prevented from using) biotechnology to enhance human nature in various ways. However, some obstinately believe that we should not. To justify their scepticism, those “bio-conservatives”, as they are derisively dubbed by their melioristic opponents, have brought forward various arguments, none of which has been found compelling by those who advocate human enhancement. In this chapter, I want to look at one particular argument and the notion that forms its backbone. The argument was proposed by Michael Sandel (2007). The notion at the core of the argument is that of “giftedness”.

Sandel discusses the case of an athlete who excels in his chosen sport not as a result of extensive training and effort, but because of drugs and genetic amendments. Sandel claims that such an athlete's success would not be his success at all. If there is achievement here it belongs to those who invented the drugs or the relevant enhancement technology. The athlete ceases to be an agent and becomes a mere machine programmed by others. Sandel believes that this is a problem, but he also believes that it is not the main one. Besides effort, there is an at least equally (if not more) important second aspect to the athletic ideal, namely (the display and cultivation of) gift.