Rhetorical Analysis Paper
Genome engineering is a technology that has the potential to change the world as we know it. Recent developments have changed the face of genetic engineering and have opened up many new possibilities that simply did not exist in the past. One of these possibilities is precision medicine or the ability to treat a medical condition by taking into account genetics, environment and behaviors. Precision medicine has huge potential to change lives for the better. However, the technology used to provide precision medicine could prove to be a “slippery slope” (par. 6) that plummets from benefitting humankind to creating unanticipated outcomes or even sinister applications. “A Prudent Path Forward for Genomic Engineering
…show more content…
and Germline Gene Modification” by David Baltimore et al (2015), addresses the need to set forth guidelines to use this technology responsibly and carefully. The authors had a small number of fallacies and did not spend much time addressing the opposing side of the issue, however, they established credibility early on and through the use of emotionally charged words, logical arguments and assumptions, ascertained that there is indeed an urgent, global need to establish guidelines before moving forward with genomic engineering. In “A Prudent Path Forward for Genomic Engineering and Germline Gene Modification” by Baltimore et al, the attendees at the IGI Forum on Bioethics in Napa, California discussed and formulated a plan to determine the best path forward for future developments and responsible uses of genome engineering. These attendees were experts in genetics, law, bioethics, and science, as well as representatives from government agencies and members of the public. New technology in DNA sequencing (determining the order of a DNA molecule) and genome engineering have made it possible for any researcher with a knowledge of molecular biology to modify genomes. This technology is called CRISPR-Cas9. CRISPR-Cas9 is a method of changing DNA by introducing or correcting mutations. It can be used to correct a range of medical conditions that have a genetic component. The potential of precision medicine is thrilling technology, but with the possibilities come the possibility of a slippery slope that could lead to less responsible uses of that technology. It has become imperative to make decisions concerning the future possibilities of genomic engineering in a wide variety of applications and determine what the desired results should be. It is important to assemble global representatives to consider these issues and recommend policies so that there is a sensible path forward as scientists work to make these important scientific discoveries. The authors use logos, or an appeal to logic to prove their argument. The arguments given by Baltimore et al, are compelling, however, there are some logical fallacies that take away from their captivating argument. One of those arguments is as follows: “The simplicity of the CRISPR-Cas9 system allows any researcher with knowledge of molecular biology to modify genomes, making feasible experiments that were previously difficult or impossible to conduct” (par. 3). This is Dicto Simpliciter. Is it actually true that anyone with knowledge of molecular biology could modify genes well enough to do the things listed in the example? Perhaps, but there is no evidence. Another fallacy is “The group…focused on the issue of human germline engineering, as the methods have already been demonstrated in mice and monkeys” (par. 5). This is an example of hasty generalization. Just because the method works in mice and monkeys, does not mean it will work in humans. Another fallacy would be “This group [the experts], all from the United States…” (par. 5). This uses naming. Are they saying that because the stakeholders were American, they would somehow have the most correct judgement compared to other countries? An area where the paper makes a logical argument is when it discusses what would be a responsible use of the technology and addresses the potential of “unintended consequences” that might come from the limits of scientific knowledge (par. 6). In spite of its fallacies, the paper makes a logical case for the need to have a discussion about a way forward as genomic engineering becomes more of a reality and less science fiction. That way forward, according to the authors, is informed discussion.
As a result of the discussions, there should be an implementation of steps to guide decisions relating to genome engineering. The simplicity of CRISPR-Cas9 has “revolutionized the field of genetics and molecular biology” (par. 2) thus allowing anyone with a “knowledge of molecular biology to modify genomes” (par. 3). Before this technology became available, this was a very difficult or impossible task. For example, using CRISPR-Cas9 technology, it is now possible to replace mutated genes that underlie liver-based metabolic disease in mice. Stem cells can be cultured to produce specific tissues such as heart muscle cells or neurons. CRISPR-Cas9 technology can also replicate the genetic basis for human diseases, which gives scientists insights into previously difficult to comprehend disorders. Along with its potential to change the world of medicine, there is the potential that this new technology may have unintended effects and could create unknown risks to human health and well-being. The authors point out that even straightforward medical scenarios raise concern over the possibility of unintended consequences because there are limits to the scientist’s knowledge of genetics, gene-environment interactions and the pathways of disease. Also, some of these genetic changes are heritable, raising significant concern for problems that could be passed to the next generation. All of these scenarios and examples show the urgent need for establishing guidelines for the implementation of genome engineering. In order to keep public trust in science, there must be transparency and open discussion regarding all decisions. Implementing these guidelines and decisions early in the process will ensure that these new technologies will benefit
mankind.
Stem cell research has been a heated and highly controversial debate for over a decade, which explains why there have been so many articles on the issue. Like all debates, the issue is based on two different arguments: the scientific evolution and the political war against that evolution. The debate proves itself to be so controversial that is both supported and opposed by many different people, organizations, and religions. There are many “emotional images [that] have been wielded” in an attempt to persuade one side to convert to the other (Hirsen). The stem cell research debate, accompanied by different rhetoric used to argue dissimilar points, comes to life in two articles and a speech: “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? Yes, Don’t Impede Medical Progress” by Virginia Postrel; “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? No, It’s a Moral Monstrosity” by Eric Cohen and William Kristol; and “Remarks by Ron Reagan, Jr., to the 2004 Democratic National Convention” by Ron Reagan, Jr. Ethos, pathos, and logos are the main categories differentiating the two arguments.
The age of genetic technology has arrived. Thanks to genetic technological advancements, medical practitioners, with the help of genetic profiling, will be able to better diagnose patients and design individual tailored treatments; doctors will be able to discern which medications and treatments will be most beneficial and produce the fewest adverse side effects. Rationally designed vaccines have been created to provide optimal protection against infections. Food scientists have hopes of genetically altering crops to increase food production, and therefore mitigate global hunger. Law enforcement officers find that their job is made easier through the advancement of forensics; forensics is yet another contribution of genetic technology. Doctors have the ability to identify “high-risk” babies before they are born, which enables them to be better prepared in the delivery room. Additionally, oncologists are able to improve survival rates of cancer patients by administering genetically engineered changes in malignant tumors; these changes result in an increased immune response by the individual. With more than fifty years of research, and billions of dollars, scientists have uncovered methods to improve and prolong human life and the possibilities offered by gene therapy and genetic technology are increasing daily.
Manipulation of language can be a weapon of mind control and abuse of power. The story Animal Farm by George Orwell is all about manipulation, and the major way manipulation is used in this novel is by the use of words. The character in this book named Squealer employs ethos, pathos, and logos in order to manipulate the other animals and maintain control.
Kevles, Daniel J. and Leroy Hood. "Will the Human Genome Project Lead to Abuses In Genetic Engineering?" Taking Sides. Ed. Thomas A. Easton. Guilford, Connecticut: Dushkin Publishing Group Inc., 1995. 342-357.
In the modern world humans have been able to design and create nearly anything, most to aid us in our daily lives and improve our standard of living. It is only inevitable that eventually humans would take our superior knowledge and skill to manipulate life itself and change our genome to produce a healthier and even more superior human standard of life. In recent years discussion about gene therapy has changed into a promising possibility to treat many of our common human diseases and disorders. Although gene therapy might be the answer to many problems, it has been met with a number of logistical and ethical hardships. With the prospect of being a treatment for inherited genetic disorders, cancers, and viral infections, gene therapy seems like the logical fix-it-all bandage that many people would benefit from.
How often do you use technology? Did you know that 38% of college students couldn’t go 10 minutes without looking at their emails, tablets, or phones? In fact, there are huge debates out there about technology asking the ultimate question, is technology hindering society or helping? The first person in this debate is Tara Parker-Pope, who is known for her award winning writings on women’s health.
"What's the worst that can happen to me? I die, and it's for the babies," said Jessie Gelsinger as he left for the hospital to receive gene therapy treatment. (Stolberg) People risk their lives everyday in the name of science. One such science that people have recently been drawn to is gene therapy. Although, gene therapy may be new and exciting and it may be helping to find cures to diseases we only dreamed of curing, we have to remember it is dangerous. It needs to be done with much supervision. Every new step we take in the advancement of gene therapy should be thought over because the consequences could reach farther then we ever believed they could. There are so many dangers of the techniques used that can lead to consequences as serious as death. The government imposes many guidelines, and it needs to stay that way. The biggest dangers, however, may be in what is to come.
Plant geneticist Pamela Ronald in her TED talk, “The Case of Engineering Food” argues that she acknowledges a food system that admits both organic and genetically engineered food. In order to compel viewers, she describes examples with images of organic plants and vegetables in her TED talk presentation. Her intended audience is the public and she claims to provide examples of plant genetic applications that are in the public domain and not controlled by large seed companies. She uses rhetorical analysis and evaluation of an argument throughout her talk for the purpose of persuading listeners about the genetic methods used in food that are safe for humans and the environment. For example, her talk is very convincing, argumentative,
Finally, some opponents of germline genome editing argue that it should not be allowed in clinical practice because it is unnatural. However, this argument is predicated on the incorrect assumption that “natural” is synonymous with “good”. These opponents should consider that birth defects and other genetic diseases and disorders are also natural. If society advocated for a totally natural existence, the medical system would not exist. Medicine exists primarily for people’s desire to defy nature and live as long and as healthily as we possibly can. This opportunity should also be afforded to future people, especially now that there are more technologically advanced ways of accomplishing it.
Human Genetic Engineering: Designing the Future As the rate of advancements in technology and science continue to grow, ideas that were once viewed as science fiction are now becoming reality. As we collectively advance as a society, ethical dilemmas arise pertaining to scientific advancement, specifically concerning the controversial topic of genetic engineering in humans.
“UC Berkeley researchers have made a major improvement in CRISPR-Cas9 technology that achieves an unprecedented success rate of 60 percent when replacing a short stretch of DNA with another”(Antonio Carusillo, PhD Candidate in Genetic Engineering (Marie Curie) at University of Freiburg (2018-present). This statistic shows that there is more of a chance to success but there is a chance to fail 40 percent but overall it will succeed which is why people are lenient about will it actually work or not, but as technology get better so will treatments to cure hard to pinpoint disease such as cancer, zika, or leukemia. Genome editing (also called gene editing) is a group of technologies that give scientists the ability to change an organism's DNA.
Several terms, including “precision medicine,” “stratified medicine,” “targeted medicine,” and “pharmacogenomics,” are used interchangeably with “personalized medicine.” “Precision medicine” is perhaps most synonymous to “personalized medicine” and has been defined by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) as “the use of genomic, epigenomic, exposure and other data to define individual patterns of disease, potentially leading to better individual treatment.” “Stratification”
Scientists and the general population favor genetic engineering because of the effects it has for the future generation; the advanced technology has helped our society to freely perform any improvements. Genetic engineering is currently an effective yet dangerous way to make this statement tangible. Though it may sound easy and harmless to change one’s genetic code, the conflicts do not only involve the scientific possibilities but also the human morals and ethics. When the scientists first used mice to practice this experiment, they “improved learning and memory” but showed an “increased sensitivity to pain.” The experiment has proven that while the result are favorable, there is a low percentage of success rate. Therefore, scientists have concluded that the resources they currently own will not allow an approval from the society to continually code new genes. While coding a new set of genes for people may be a benefitting idea, some people oppose this idea.
One of the biggest concerns involved in gene therapy in humans is the lack of knowledge and the possibility for consequences later on or i...
The procedures that will be the future of modern medicine currently fall into the realms of taboo and fictional. These procedures encompass every aspect of medical science, from exploration of the human body, curing diseases, to improving a person’s quality of life. Many of these procedures are not very well known, while a few have been in the spotlight. These procedures include cloning, nano-robotics, retro-viruses, and genetic manipulation via gene-specific medications. For any serious breakthroughs in modern medical science, we must embrace these new forms of treatment instead of shying away from them. Second, I’ll attempt to explain how these methods and procedures could benefit mankind.