De La O 1

Kate De La O

Instructor McCann

English 1301.127

08 November 2021

Genetic Modification Hysteria

Technological advancements in medicine have brought many cures but also many

concerns. Advances and the practice of genetic modification are now controversial. Jessica

Cussins and Marcy Darnovsky wrote "Why Worry About Genetically Modified Babies?" to

enlighten the public about the negative impact of genetic modification. Cussins and Darnovsky

successfully educate and persuade their audience about genetic modification utilizing rhetorical

appeals, formatting, and providing clarification.

Before diving into the article, readers are aware of the authors' stance and the topic

discussed in the article because of the clever title "Why Worry About Genetically Modified

Babies?" Posing the title as a question specifies the aspects of the topic covered. In this case, the

article is going to express reasons and concerns about genetically modified babies. Cussins and

Darnovsky open the article by giving background information on the genetic modification

intentions. By presenting the counterargument for genetic modification, the authors establish

credibility, as they are not only stating their point of view and introduce the reader to other

opinions. Respecting counterarguments, they express the good intentions of scientists' reasons

for genetic modification to prevent the passing of mitochondrial disease from a parent to their

offspring. This allows the reader to take a stance on the situation without the authors' initial

implication that the opposing argument is morally wrong, shamed upon, or evil. With so many

new discoveries, new limits are being tested. The driving force of the authors' opinion against
 De La O 2

genetic modification is clearly stated, as the perpetual use of germline modification in the United

States. Cussins and Darnovsky break down their argument into two categories: political/social

aspects and nuclear genome transfer to simplify an already complicated topic. When discussing

the political/social effect of genetic modification, the authors explain how the actions of one

country, the U.K, in genetic modification, affect other countries with biological advancements,

the United States. Thus, implying that the targeted audience is anyone and everyone who lives in

a country with advanced biotechnology. Then explaining how the U.K is on the verge of

allowing mitochondrial replacement in fertility clinics will later influence the U.S to do the same,

supports the authors' claim of uncontrolled genetic modification, as the U.S does not have any

laws limiting genetic modification like the U.K. Though the feared nuclear genome transfer is

not yet possible, the authors suggest that the jump from mitochondrial transfer to nuclear genome

transfer is not far off. They support this assumption by providing a poll conducted in 1988 by the

UCLA conference, "Engineering the Human Germline," revealing that some scientists were

looking forward to nuclear genome transfer not only in babies but adults as well (Cussins and

Darnvosky 2). Even with limited genetic modification research and discoveries of that time.

Cussins and Darnovsky state that "if nuclear genome transfer were allowed, it could be used for

any purpose" in the U.S, including the creation of "designer babies," which are babies who were

genetically modified to receive certain features, either physical and/or cognitive (2).

Genetic modification has never been, and never will be black and white. Cussins and

Darnvosky point out that the public has misconceptions about genetic modification due to the

simplicity in which it is being presented. Advocates for genetic modification argue that the

mDNA (mitochondrial DNA) modifications are not defined as genetic modification, as opposed

to nDNA (nuclear DNA) modifications. However, as stated by the authors, mDNA and nDNA
 De La O 3

are closely intertwined, and modifications done to one undoubtedly affects the other. Thus,

falling under the definition of genetic modification. The authors cleverly utilize confirmatio, a

component of classical oration, to explain and counter false or misinterpreting information.

Confirmatio is when an author makes a claim and supports this claim with evidence and

reasoning. For example, the authors assess how women are introduced to genetic modification

with "soothing words and images" by scientists and fertility clinics to paint a beautiful picture

but hide the disturbing facts that they are actually being used as experimental practice.

The use of rhetorical appeals throughout the article is evident and effectively persuades

the reader to side with the authors' stance. When presenting the genetic modification situation

that the U.K is currently handling, the authors depict the decision to continue advancements in

nuclear genome transfer as the breaking of moral laws that before "had been respected by the

scientists globally" (Cussins and Darnovsky 1). Then continues by explaining that if the U.S

decides to partake in nuclear genome transfer, it too breaks the globally understood laws of

nature. To incite guilt amongst the audience and the U.K, the authors state how any

complications and errors would lay upon the shoulders of those pushing and practicing nuclear

genome transfer. Securing this stigma, the authors declare that trials of nuclear genome transfer

in animals frequently produced dozens to a hundred nonviable offspring. Meaning the chance of

losing and damaging a human's life is high. Using the logical and ethical appeal, the Cussins and

Darnovsky cite the U.K Department of Health to support their assertion that nuclear genome

transfer is unnecessary as it is not to prevent the passing of disease, like the mitochondrial

genome transfer, but rather for cosmetic and trait enhancement. The use of pathos can also be

found throughout the second portion of the article. When explaining their second point, concerns

over nuclear genome transfer, Cussins and Darnovsky emphasize that if any difficulties were
 De La O 4

going to occur, the people directly affected would be the women and the babies. Women and

babies are seen as the delicate, cherished, and protected in society. Positioning them as the

victims of science appeals to the readers' emotions. The visual image presented in the article is of

a baby within the womb, which is one of the most vulnerable stages a human undergoes.

Following is another image, but in this case, it is of a sharp-looking object puncturing a baby in

the germinal stage. The authors deliberately placed these images in a specific order to imply that

genetic modification is the obstruction of a defenseless, delicate, and vulnerable person's life.

The authors highlight their concerns about the effects genetic modification will have on women

and children while simultaneously projecting genetic modification as messing with the

"integrity" of the human race. This is apparent in the final sentences of the article; "Primarily, the

health of women and children, and the integrity of the widespread international agreement

against the most dangerous human biotechnologies. And also, perhaps, the shape of the human

future" (Cussins and Darnvosky). Having the last sentence as an open sentence leaves the

responsibility of protecting women, children, and the "integrity" of the human race on the

readers. It also depicts genetic modification as possibly the end of the human race. Therefore,

making the choice against genetic modification more appealing. Lasty the authors implement

ethos by leaving a short bio of their expertise to establish credibility amongst the audience and

secure their trust.

Genetic modification is a new treatment introduced to society as science and technology

continue to improve and expand. Just as everything new comes with doubts and fears, many are

hesitant about the process and outcome. Authors such as Cussins and Darnovsky use their work

to argue their stance on genetic modification. Utilizing rhetorical appeals, formatting, and
 De La O 5

clarification, in "Why Worry About Genetically Modified Babies?" the authors successfully

present their perspective and provide sufficient evidence to back up their claims.
 De La O 6

Works Cited

Cussins, Jessica, and Marcy Darnovsky. "Why Worry about Genetically Modified Babies?"

EBSCHO Host, Council of Responsible Genetics, 2014, https://tamiu.idm.oclc.org/login?

url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=100043734&scope=site.