Visual Rhetoric Assaingment #3

Genes in Color

Saul Huerta

English 1A

Srpring 2014

Genes in Color

 For some people, it is much more easier to understand how something works if they physically see it. I 

am one of those people and believe that the project helps better understand people knowledge of 

genetic engineering, which is my topic. Therefore, the purpose of the essay is to help one better 

understand genetic engineering with the use of a physical (3d object).

The sculpture of the DNA is made out of clay, with copper wire for its skeleton (or the stuff that 

helps it stay up). The color of the two strands from the DNA model is bright red and the regular genes 

(or the 

non modified genes) are in blue in orange, meanwhile the modified genes is green paired with purple 

and pink paired with yellow. I did this because I couldn't find a way to make replaceable genes with 

clay.  The colors don’t do much but contrast each other; I didn’t do it to set a specific tone, simply 

because DNA is well understood, and red for the strand and blue for the genes (some) is what is 

expected from a DNA. However the pink paired with yellow and the purple and green are in the 

sculpture to make the person think that those genes don’t follow a particular pattern and that leads to the 

person seeing the DNA to postulate why they are off colored and let them come to a conclusions, 

hopefully centered around genetic engineering. Since the double helix isn’t completed, I left that to 

mean that genetic engineering still needs improvement as this goes hand in hand with cracks that are 

seen more towards the top. At the top the sculpture is more cracked and broken, I implemented that 

specifically to show the viewer that genetic engineering is not perfect yet and that it still needs work.As 

you look lower in the DNA, the sculpture becomes more soft and non-broken, indicating that DNA 

that's not messed with is the most stable. It makes for a conflicting or ironic tone seriously making the 

viewer think about their position on genetic engineering. Even though there is a deeper meaning than 

meets the eye at the beginning, it simple enough to be found on wall of a young scientist barely 

exploring these concepts, but still complex. The sculpture relates to the articles because the sculpture 

defines what genetic engineering is. The sculpture leaves the non-modified genes alone or undisturbed 

and you can see the genes that were changed for better ones, and that is what the gist of genetic 

engineering is. This is what the academic article from the last paper was about, explaining how genetic 

engineering works. 

I decided to go with clay and boy was that a mistake, I spent more time trying to make sure the thing 

wouldn’t collapse on it self, than sculpting it. My first solution to this problem was having a base from 

another object that would have worked fine; however, I found a way to keep from not self-destructing. 

I made the bottom of the DNA model very heavy, but I made one side heavier than the other and that 

caused problems when the clay dried. I have to go back again to a base (sort of) and used something 

like a paperweight so it wouldn’t fall over. Another deviation from the original plan was for the 

modified genes to be able to be able to switch from regular genes to modified genes, but with clay 

that's not happening. The clay would just end up collapsing and decided to move forward without 

them since the only thing the removable genes would do is just annoy me while it destroys the 

sculpture. Consequently, the genes were just painted a different color so that the viewer could see that. 

Once I sculpted the clay to how I wanted, I let it dry and started painting. This step was the most 

enjoyable part of the sculpture because it had been a while since I used any sort of pain, and since the 

paint didn’t chip off when it dried, made it very easy to paint and not keep going stroking the same part 

of the sculpture repetitively. I spent more time on this project more than I had anticipated I estimated 

that it would take me a collective of 4 hours to put the sculpture together and have it complete, but I 

was wrong. From this, I think the grade I should get for this project is a high ‘b’ since you said that “if” 

it shows that I put in a good amount of time into the project you would give us a good grade.

Secondly, I address all the points given to make this assignment. The reason I shouldn’t get an ‘A’ is 

because I believe that the paper has a lot of room for improvement since my writing is not the

best, even after I take it for peer review. 

In conclusion, I explained how the DNA sculpture tied up with my previous paper and I analyzed the 

sculpture it self to give it a deeper meaning than just face value. I also commented on the challenges it 

tool to make the sculpture. 

*sorry I don't know how to indent here I highlighted the begining of the paragraphs

SCIENCE!! *3-D DNA blueprint. Assaingment 3

Final Genre Analysis

I cound't find a way to double space on the blog so i just put it in google drive.

Link to my paper with revision:

Draft 2

Saul Huerta JR

English 1A

March 5, 2014

Can We Design the Future?

Genetic engineering has gained a substantial amount of attention in the past years because of its applicability and ethics. Consequently the masses have created many canvases of communication to express their opinions, debates and facts that have been presented through current knowledge of the science.  In this paper I am going to compare and contrast three different forms of text; furthermore, I also will personally analyze each of the text presented.

In the academic perspective of genetic engineering, I will use the research Genetic Modification and Genetic Determinism (Resnik & Vorhaus, 2006) published by the Journal of Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine.  The research is laid out to “examine four arguments used to support the view that there is something inherently wrong with genetic modification.” The arguments are then explained by a divided analysis: defining the terms genetic modification and genetic determinism, “explaining the difference between the stronger and weaker forms of genetic determinism,” and the ethics of genetic engineering. The example given in the research is the “Designers Babies,” the idea is that parents will be able to tell the genetic engineers what they want their child to look like from the gene pool of their parents and also be able modify the DNA of the unborn baby to max out their intelligence.  The research uses this example to explain difference between genetic modification and genetic determinism.  The intention of the research paper is to inform people on a more valid argument rather than refer to an argument based on “false or misleading biological assumptions.” Since the direction of the paper is to inform the general public, the syntax of the paper is more general than it would be if it was going to be used as a thesis for a PhD. The people who wrote the research paper are Daniel B. Vorhaus, a graduate from Harvard whose field focuses are in Medicine and Genetics Genealogy, and Dr. David Resnik, an individual who has a PhD in philosophy and JD in law and works for the National Institute of Environmental health Sciences. Because of the background of the authors I do believe research is credible, that and because the research is published in a journal.

My 2^nd form of communication is a YouTube video titled Genetic Engineering and Glowing Kitties of DOOM! By YouTuber Myles Power (MYLES, 2013). Myles is a man who has been on YouTube for a short amount of period, considering how many videos he has made and how many subscribers he has, but the accreditation comes from the sources where he got the facts, not necessary in the field of genetic engineering.  The video’s layout is as follows: he introduces the internet and how it has revolutionized the world, and then goes and says that the internet can extrapolate research, then talks about genetic engineering and how it is being showcased as a bad thing when in reality the people are going out of proportion. What I am referring to is how a blog he mentions in the video demonizes genetic engineering by talking about the “glow in the dark kittens” and how that’s a sign that our world is going to represent a sci-fi flick. Myles then explains the situation and talks about the actual research that was done, and how the cats do not glow in the dark but they fluoresce under black light. The research intention with fluorescent cats is that they wouldn’t have to cut open cats to see if the intended gene was successful in its implementation. The approach to this form of text is the complete opposite of the research paper.  For example, the tone for the YouTube video is more comedic than research paper; such as time 1:05 thru 1:50 and 3:19 to 3:53. The video also shares the informative trait that the research paper has by telling and explaining how that research went forward. The message that was conveyed in this in video is to not be fooled with the research and to go on and read it your self before you believe it. The purpose of the video can be found when Myles introduces a blog that makes genetic engineering seem like an evil thing, when in fact the research is for the good of the people, that is another trait that the “Genetic Engineering and Glowing Kitties of DOOM!” shares with the research paper are that it is meant to inform the general public about false or misleading biological assumptions.

My last piece is a comic that has an old couple holding a turkeypiede, a genetically altered turkey that has 10 legs instead of one; in the text box it reads “isn’t genetic engineering amazing? Furthermore, the old woman holding the turkeypide had an excited look on her face and the old man had a blank expression. Both of the elder’s look like they were born in the 50’s and that can be attributed to their old fashioned sense of style. The caption on the comic read, “Two years ago who would have even imagined such a thing as a turkeipde?” The comic was drown by comic artist John McPherson, who posted the comic in his website named Close to Home, which runs nearly 700 newspaper worldwide. He draws mostly on topics that are relevant in conversation at the time, with mostly unbiased other the goal to make someone laugh. The tone of the comic is joyful and persuasive, in the manner that it has the old people talking about modern day conversations. Since old people don’t, for the most part, don’t talk about such matter and the turkeipde itself is pretty. Try to imagine how a turkeipde, pretty bazar like something that has probably centipede looking eyes and then you see the turkey part of it.  The persuasive section of the comic kicks in when the comic reads “we would have never had this 2 years ago” which shows that by having such foods we are moving in a positive direction, and by having a more comforting figure such as old people explaining genetic engineering makes it more accepting for people who look up to old people, such as grandparents, parents or even just old friends.  I believe that the directed audience for the comic is aimed at older people mainly working class and up. Since older people are the ones who make up the majority of people who still read newspapers that is the intended audience. The main message that is being conveyed through the text is how genetic engineering can have a positive influence in our life and is meant to change the attitude of people who have negative opinions about the subject.

What I think makes the text clear is the way of stating what needs to be argued, defined, and told. For example the Genetic Modification and Genetic Determinism research effective is the break down of the genetic engineering and the way it delivers it. The authors make clear the difference between genetic modification-“ the process of intentionally altering human genes for the purpose of producing offspring with those genetic changes” and genetic determinism- “loosely defined as the view that genes (genotypes) cause traits (phenotypes).” After it defines these two points it details each argument presented and explains in what category it belongs [GM or GD]. The most effective message from the three text can be attributed to the comic, it tells you what it needs to tell you in a fast a funny way. Not a lot of people have to time to watch a YouTube video about genetic engineering let alone an entire research paper. In a way you can say that the comic generalizes the research paper and the YouTube video. The relationship between Genetic Engineering and the message that all of the three texts is trying a convey a positive outlook towards genetic engineering; each of them having their own limitations; for example, the comic tells you’re about genetic engineering fast and painless but it does not give you more information or research. It just informs you that it’s going to be a thing in the future and that it’s going to be a good change in society that's it. Meanwhile, the research document is a good read and very detailed, the research gives you examples, and it also gives you the counter arguments, even how to properly support your stance on genetic engineering but at the cost of time.  I think that what we read can defiantly impact people, (*not trying to offend any religion) people who are Christian and read the bible daily believe in it and try their best to live as Jesus set the example. But then again there are text like Mien Kampf that influenced an entire country to become anti-Semitic and spark the Second World War, it just depends on what context we are speaking bout.

In conclusion, I have gone over the 3 types of text that all try and convince people to support genetic engineering since it will be beneficial to all who endorse it. Furthermore, I give my personal opinion on which strategy is most effective to deliver what the authors of all three texts are tying to convey.

Works Cited

McPherson, J. (n.d.). genetic engineering. Retrieved from http://www.inspirationgreen.com/monsanto-cartoons-and-posters.html

MYLES, P. (2013, JUNE 21). Genetic engineering and glowing kitties of doom!. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x1TvYgy8tc

Resnik, D. B., & Vorhaus, D. B. ((2006, June 26 )2006, June 26 ). Genetic modification and genetic determinism. Retrieved from http://www.peh-med.com/content/1/1/9Works