The two soon to be parents looked at each other, exchanging nervous glances. From their expressions the doctor could tell they were apprehensive about having a genetically engineered child. The doctor leaned closer in an attempt to ease their fears, saying “We want to give your child the best possible start. Believe me, we have enough imperfection built in already. Your child doesn't need any more additional burdens. Keep in mind, this child is still you. Simply the best of you. You could conceive naturally a thousand times and never get such a result.” (Gattaca). This is a scene from the popular science fiction film
Gattaca, released in 1997. When this film was first released, many did not realize how close geneticists were to being able to achieve the feats this doctor describes. Genetic engineering technology has developed rapidly in the past few decades. Scientists are able to remove DNA that codes for desirable traits out of one species, and then insert that sequence into another species genome. This technology can be immensely powerful. Genetically engineered plants can survive droughts, resists pesticides, or even emit their own toxins to stave off predators. Genetic engineering is no longer solely a subject for geneticists to discuss. Politicians and lawyers must create regulations to manage this advancing technology. Agricultural scientists must understand the pros and cons of growing genetically modified crops. Philosophers must strive to create an ethical standard to manage the development of genetic engineering. In this essay, I will discuss how philosophers and geneticists approach the subject of genetic engineering differently. Specifically, I will be looking at the article
Selecting Children: The Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Engineering by philosopher S. Matthew Liao and
Human Dendritic Cells Genetically Engineered to Express High Levels of the Human Epithelial Tumor Antigen Mucin (MUC-1) by Robert A. Henderson, Maya T. Nimgaonkar, Simon C. Watkins, Paul D. Robbins, Edward D. Ball, and Olivera J. Finn. Though they deal with the same subject matter, these two authors approach their subject in vastly different manors. Their differences in formatting, style of language, complexity of diction, and type of evidence make these authors works irreconcilable. The extreme disparity between the rhetorical strategy of these two authors make it seem like they would either not appreciate the significance of, or not understand one another's work.
The first, and easiest to notice, difference in rhetorical strategy between these two authors is their different organizational schemes. Robert A. Henderson et al. follow the AIMRAD format, which is the standard for scientific writing. The AIMRAD format is composed of an abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion, in that order. This format is useful for scientists as it guides them through the experimentation process that the authors went through, allowing them to recreate the experiment themselves in many cases. S. Matthew Liao, however, follows a much more unique format. Like Henderson et al., Liao starts with an abstract and an introduction and ends with a conclusion, but after that the similarities end. The body of Liao’s essay is divided into four main sections entitled “The Perfectionist View”, “The Libertarian View”, “The Human Nature View”, and “The Motivation View” (Liao). Each presents a unique analysis of the philosophical view being discussed, making each section independent of the others. These two authors extremely different organizational scheme suggest that they value different things in their argument. Henderson et al. present a methodical way to recreate their results in a specific setting while Liao gives several different independent views to bring the reader to his conclusion. This suggests that Henderson et al. value the ability to recreate a quantifiable result while Liao values having a wide variety in support of his conclusion. As such, it is likely that these two authors would not think the other one has supported their claim adequately. Henderson et al. would likely disregard Liao’s conclusion as it is abstract and unquantifiable while Liao would likely disregard Henderson et al.’s conclusion as being too specific and not relevant to other cases.
The next difference in these author’s rhetorical strategy is the type of language they use. Robert A. Henderson et al. use abstract language and severely limit their use of personal pronouns. Rather than state what they do to the subject during the experiment, they describe what was done to the subject. For instance, Henderson et al. writes “CD34-enriched cells at a concentration of 2 X 10 cells/ml were incubated overnight in DC medium with cytokines. Cells (2-4 X IO5) were aliquoted to 15-ml round-bottom culture tubes and resuspended in 1 ml of retroviral supernatant with cytokines and 6-8 ng/ml profumine sulfate” (Henderson et al.). The authors remove themselves almost entirely from their speech using first person pronouns on very few occasions. Authors of scientific material often do this to convey authority with their writing. By removing first person pronouns and using abstract language, their work seems irrefutable. It makes their conclusions sound more like absolute facts than conclusions made by the authors. S. Matthew Liao, however, uses a more concrete language and does not avoid first person pronouns. Instead, he writes phrases like “I would like to focus here on certain kinds of genetic engineering” or “Many people would reject the Permissive Libertarian View on the ground that it is too permissive” (Liao). Like with Henderson et al., Liao’s style conveys a sense of authority with his readers. Liao’s readers, however, do not value abstract language like the Henderson et al.’s readers. Liao’s readers value straightforward, easy to read language and understand that his conclusions are not irrefutable. These two authors different language styles, again, make it apparent that their values are too different for them to understand or appreciate each others work. Liao and his readers value a straightforward writing style while Henderson et al’s readers appreciate an abstract style which removes the authors from their work. Liao would likely dismiss Henderson et al’s work as trying to sound overly complicated while Henderson et al would dismiss Liao’s work as incredible because of his use of first person.
Another key difference in rhetorical strategy between these two authors is the complexity of their diction and how well they define their vocabulary. Henderson et al. use complex scientific jargon that only a fellow geneticist would understand. In one line Henderson et al. writes, “Epithelial cell mucin, encoded by the MUC-\ gene, is expressed by adenocarcinomas of the pancreas, breast, and ovary and by several other tumors of ductal epithelial cell origin (10)” (Henderson et al.). To even a well educated reader, this sentence would make no sense unless the reader has specific knowledge of biology or genetics. Henderson et al. make no attempt to explain any of their diction either. Instead they assume that their audience will know what terms like “epithelial cell mucin”, “glycosylated”, and “ sodium diatrizoate-Ficoll” mean (Henderson et al.). Liao, on the other hand, keeps his terminology simple and explains any terms that may be unfamiliar to the reader . During his introduction, Liao writes, “Furthermore, a distinction is often made between somatic and germline genetic engineering. Somatic engineering targets the genes in specific organs and tissues of the body of a single existing person without affecting genes in their eggs or sperm. Germline engineering targets the genes in eggs, sperm or very early embryos. My concern here will be with the ethical issues surrounding germline engineering” (Liao). By defining his terms clearly and succinctly, Liao opens up his philosophical dialogue to all philosophers, not just those who specialize in genetic ethics. These authors different ways of dealing with complex genetic diction shows yet another way in which their works are mutually exclusive. Judging by the level of genetic knowledge Liao shows in his essay, he would not understand the Henderson et al’s scientific jargon. Henderson et al., however, would be able to understand Liao’s essay, but would likely dismiss it as elementary because Liao’s diction not show a high level of genetic knowledge.
The final difference in these author’s rhetorical strategy is the type of evidence they use and how they present that evidence. Robert A. Henderson et al. use a quantifiable data as their evidence. The authors explain exactly how they obtained their data and then display it with a variety of charts, graphs, and culture slides. For instance, they include several graphs which display the number of cells in a culture plotted against the amount of time since the culture was created. They then use this evidence and draw conclusions from it in their discussions. Of course, one would not be able to understand this data or how they arrived to such conclusions unless one had a thorough knowledge of genetics. S. Matthew Liao, however, uses a series of logical points to bring the reader to his conclusion. One example is where Liao says, “The Really Great Net-Benefit Case: A very minor genetic enhancement to human nature can greatly improve human nature. If the net benefit is indeed really great, perhaps genetically enhancing human nature in such circumstances could also be permissible” (Liao). Liao presents a series of premises that, if true, prove some conclusion to be true. For instance, the above statement is making the following argument:
Premise 1: A minor genetic enhancement can greatly improve human nature.
Premise 2: Anything which greatly enhances human nature is morally permissible.
Conclusion: Minor genetic enhancements can be morally permissible.
Liao explains this argument in much more detail in his essay, using basic logic to show that the premises are true. The different types of evidence these authors implement are so vastly different that it seems unlikely that the authors would accept each others conclusions. It is unlikely that Liao would be able to decipher the graphs and data that Henderson et al. use as evidence. While Henderson et al., may be able to follow the logical sequence of Liao, they would likely dismiss his premises or conclusion as qualitative and not find it convincing.
Although Henderson et al.’s
Human Dendritic Cells Genetically Engineered to Express High Levels of the Human Epithelial Tumor Antigen Mucin (MUC-1) and Liao’s
Selecting Children: The Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Engineering both approach the same topic, they do so in vastly different manners. Henderson et al. use the AIMRAD format, complicated technical jargon, abstract language, and numerical evidence displayed in graphs and charts. Liao, however, uses a style unique to his essay, explains his vocabulary clearly, uses concrete language, and uses logical premises as evidence. Although both articles authors deal with the genetic engineering in humans, their rhetorical strategies are so vastly different that it is unlikely the authors of these two articles would understand or appreciate one another’s work. For some topics it would not matter if different disciplines could not collaborate properly, but that is not the case for genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is one of the this generations fastest growing technologies. Society is rapidly approaching the day that science fiction movies like
Gattaca become a reality. As such, geneticists and philosophers must learn to write so that they can understand and value each others writing. If the philosophers who are helping the public form opinions on the ethics of human genetic engineering do not understand the science behind it, then they cannot form truly informed arguments and if the scientists working on these genetic modifications do not understand the ethical implications of what they are doing, genetic engineering may advance to a point that is not morally acceptable.
Gattaca. Perf. Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman. Columbia Pictures, 1997. DVD.
Henderson, Robert A., Maya T. Nimgaonkar, Simon C. Watkins, Paul D. Robbins, Edward D. Ball, and Olivera J. Finn. "Human Dendritic Cells Genetically Engineered to Express High Levels of the Human Epithelial Tumor Antigen Mucin (MUC-1)."
Cancer Research 56 (1996): 3763-770. Print.
Liao, S. Matthew. “Selecting Children: The Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Engineering.”
Philosophy Compass 3.5 (2008): 973–991. Web.
No comments:
Post a Comment