Unit 4 WIP: A Sneak Peak of my Rhetorical Analysis

For my next post, I will be writing a rhetorical analysis comparing the conventions of two disciplines. More specifically, I will be looking at how a philosopher and a geneticist approach the topic of human genetic engineering differently. The articles I will be analysing are Human Dendritic Cells Genetically Engineered to Express High Levels of the Human Epithelial Tumor Antigen Mucin (MUC-1) by Robert A. Henderson et al. and Selecting Children: The Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Engineering by S. Matthew Liao. I will be analysing how the authors different rhetorical strategies create a disconnect between the articles even though they are on the same subject. Some of the aspects I will be looking at include differences in format, types of evidence used, style of language, and complexity of diction.

While this may seem like an incredibly abstract argument, this argument is relevant to you, the reader, for two reasons. Firstly, the topic of human genetic engineering is a hotbed for controversy that will not be going away anytime soon. As academics, we must strive to understand at least the basis of this subject so that we may understand the ethical complications which will arise in the future. Secondly, and more importantly, the rhetorical differences between these two pieces of work are irreconcilable. The differences in what the authors value as evidence seems to imply that the authors would either not understand each others work, or not see the value in it. This is important for two reasons. Firstly, 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. Secondly, 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.