A Rhetorical Analysis Of Chris Madden's Genetic Engineering Cartoon

Brian Deer 's article implements a subjective tone when confronting A.J Wakefield 's research. This tone of approach varies from common medical research journals because the arguments do not simply depend on factual based assertions. Like most research journals, any implications are supported by academic/peer reviewed sources. Brian Deer 's article however includes evidence and research collected through his own work; he actually questions and interviews the parents of the children diagnosed with this so called "new syndrome"(Deer 201). The key thing to note here is that all evidence collected on his own is likely to include biases.

The Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering also show that genetic engineering can lead to overpopulation and wars. First of all, in Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., everyone is the same and they have strict laws. In Harrison Bergeron, people are made to be the same by putting weights on strong people, making beautiful people wear ugly masks, and hindering smart people’s thoughts. In Jonas’ community, there is Sameness, which is making everything the

As technology improves, so do human capabilities of altering nature, which in turn creates increased responsibility. This directly relates to genetic engineering, which is beginning to morph into a reality. There are advocates for both sides that convey their personal opinions about the hypothetical results, but neither is clearly superior since both arguments speculate upon an unknown future. Hungarian psychologist, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, outlines this topic in his essay “The Future of Happiness,” which focuses on the history of selective breeding and compares the goal of happiness with genetic engineering. Csikszentmihalyi alternates between viewpoints regarding genetic engineering but presents a perspective dominated by warning.

In “The Threats from Genetically Modified Foods”, Robin Mather effectively brings awareness to the harmful side effects of genetically modified foods. She shares genetically modified foods are foods with an altered genetic make-up and therefore, is banned in several countries. Also, the pesticides used in genetically modified foods yield harmful side effects to animals and humans. On top of health hazards, the process of labeling these foods are not as costly as the Federal Drug Administration declares. Furthermore, she discredits the FDA’s credibility by revealing the bovine growth hormone (produced in cow’s pituitary glands and is a genetic modification) raises the risk of cancer; although, the FDA approves it.

“Today in the United States, by the simple acts of feeding ourselves, we are unwittingly participating in the largest experiment ever conducted on human beings.” Jeremy Seifert certainly knows how to get viewers’ attention, as exemplified by the film blurb describing his 2013 documentary, GMO OMG. The frightening depiction of the food industry is one of many efforts to expose consumers of the twenty-first century to the powerful organizations that profit from national ignorance and lack of critical inquiry and involvement. Seifert effectively harnesses the elements of rhetoric throughout his phenomenal argument against remaining complacent about the food industry’s act of withholding of information about genetically modified organisms from

Adam Savage expressed his speech titled "Why We Make" in the pursuit to fathom the reason why makers operate the way they do, and kickoff by expressing his first concoction — a Millennium Falcon he constructed in his mother's closet when he was a youngster. Savage continues to talk about the deceptive dichotomy between pop culture and culture, and how instructors and business professionals shouldn't delineate between reinvigorating the objects of myth and establishing something new. He anticipates a current generation of minorities will be stimulated to invent whatever it is they find intriguing, and points out that science, math, and art are all imperative ingredients for visionary work.

The deliberation of bioethics in human cell and stem cell research has flip-flopped altercations between whether stem cell research corrupts the future or if basic ethical uses in clinical research are being held to its standards. The idea of having genetically altered drugs and cells sits with people the wrong way, and with that they have come to the decision that cell research will cause more problems than it stopping them. However, while a majority of people and scientists believe genetic engineering is an evil corruption of nature’s course, genetic engineering has the greatest potential to do something great for our future, but it is our moralistic responsibility to follow the rules of bioethics. The author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta

Alexis Wolf Professor Julia Gousseva October 29th 2017 Critical Reading 112 Are designer babies the future? Just think about it, designing the traits of your future child to look specifically however you want. The article “The Life Editor” by Michael Page discusses the idea of scientifically modifying genes and the possibilities the methods of gene editing can hold. Page describes the new innovation called CRISPR gene editing.

In Animal Farm, George Orwell warns how power will often lead to corruption. Napoleon was placed in a position of power after Major died, and he slowly starts to lavish in his power and become addicted to the lush life of a dictator. When Napoleon first becomes a leader, he expresses how everyone will work equally, but as his reign goes on, he shortens the work hours. At the very end of the novel, the observing animals even start to see that pig and man had become the same. The irony present in the above example, illuminates how regardless of how much a ruler promises to maintain equality and fairness, the position of power that they hold, will corrupt them.

Fukuyama brings up topics that can be split into two categories: risks and benefits of genetic engineering along with the affordability of genetic engineering. Considering scientists aren’t entirely sure how genes work, they bring about several ills they wouldn’t be aware of, whether they be immediate ills or ills that show up much later (Fukuyama, 678). Genetic Engineering could have horrific effects on a population which could lead to the abandoning of genetic modification, just like in the way that hydroelectricity is no longer used as much because of the potential of dam breaks or environmental effects (Fukuyama, 680). There is also a possibility that only the rich will have access to this technology, so the state would possibly have to intervene to fix this inequality (Fukuyama, 680). Fukuyama concludes his writing by posing the fact that no matter what happens with genetic engineering, genetic engineering will change the course of human history on several levels, and on levels greater than that of any human biotechnology (Fukuyama, 681).

The film serves as a warning about extremes in technological advancement and genetic engineering. A society attempting to create utopia by genetically customizing reproduction introduces several questions regarding gene discrimination, expectations of

This procedure’s purpose is to switch out genes for more preferred ones, especially to improve the health of the child. Genetic engineering could permit selection of desired physical and pleasurable traits for non-medical reasons, which has created concern in some people. The process of switching out the genes of a fetus to install genes that are more preferred has brought up debate about whether or not parents should be able to alter their babies genes to make them more appealing to the parents interests. There are many different ways of looking at this procedure and in contrast to other scientific procedures it can be for greater good or for unnecessary enhancement that could potentially create problems in society. Designer babies aren’t morally correct or incorrect, but are in between depending on what it is being used for.

Editing of the human genome in the past has been only a sight seen in dystopia works such as Brave New World. Now, genetic enhancement is a prevalent today and people are beginning to realize the issues that can arise from creating these designer babies. Gene editing can be helpful to eradicate life changing disabilities. Yet, the term disability does not correctly label these differently abled people, as the idea of what is considered disabled has changed overtime. To fully understand the consequences and implications of genetic selection and enhancement of human embryos, society must mature and declare lines of what is and is not ethically moral.

In 1932, Aldous Huxley imagined and wrote about a world where designer baby technology is prevalent in his science-fiction novel, Brave New World. The technology would not come until many years later, but his ideas still hold up today. In the book, there were different classes depending on how genetically modified one was, including Alpha or Beta (“The Public Should Oppose Designer Baby Technology”). Outside of science fiction, though, is real science where an actual baby can be genetically modified before even being born. A designed baby is one that is purposefully shaped to be one way or another through processes including In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), where an egg is fertilized and genetically altered, and preimplantation genetic diagnosis

“The main arguments against genetic modification of human embryos are that it would be unsafe and unfair, and that modification would quickly go beyond efforts to reduce the incidence of inherited maladies” (Caplan). During the altering genes in the mother 's womb cause a lot of dangerous situations and