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 2nd 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
No comments:
Post a Comment