Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks

Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks

Summary

Richard Hayes wrote the essay, “Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks” in response to Professor Richard Green’s article, which explained the procedure for developing human embryos through specific gene selection.  In his essay, Hayes deconstructs the scientific principles and ethics that Green uses in his analysis of this new approach of developing genetically modified human beings, which Green fondly refers to as “designer babies”. Hayes affirms his support for the scientific research that Professor Green describes in his analysis. However, he is quick to point out that he disagrees with it. In his view, this use of neo-eugenics to create a human embryo will have a far-reaching negative outcome for the survival of human species.

Hayes condemns the modification of human genetics through the use of neo-eugenic methods. Hayes asserts that allowing parents to modify the genetic makeup of their children to their liking will have devastating effects on human species in the long run. The outcome is a vulnerable species that would not cope effectively in the prevailing environmental conditions. Hayes mentions the probability of the rise of the eugenics arms race. This, be believes, would arise due to lack of military discipline and unethical sense of nationalism that the world is experiencing today. He concludes by proposing that humanity should only use genetic technology to prevent life-threatening conditions and to enhance the genetics of the child to suit particular conditions.

The Author’s Purpose

The primary intended audience for this particular essay is the members of the general population, especially parents, who are governed by ethics and morality. For this group, the author is seeking to rally them behind the idea of adopting genetic technology only when it is intended to save a life.  Also, Hayes also targets policymakers in the field of genetics. For this second group, Hayes is keen to influence their decision to make policies that promote the ethical application of genetic technology. The author develops the persona of an individual who is an expert in genetic technology, but who is keen to promote ethical use of the same. He develops this persona by describing the procedure by Professor Green from an expert point of view. Meanwhile, his position on the use of the technology comes out in the manner in which he interprets and analyses the procedure by Professor Green.  For instance, in his conclusion, he recommends the use of genetic technology to prevent life-threatening conditions and to enhance the genetics of the child. The tone of this essay is highly professional and appropriate for both the audience and the subject.

The Author’s Method

Inductive reasoning is whereby an author uses evidence, such as statistics, real events, or authoritative testimony, to support his or her position.  Hayes uses statistics to support his argument when he states that “nearly 40 countries — including Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, and South Africa-have adopted socially responsible policies regulating the new human genetic technologies”(Hayes). He uses these statistics to support his conclusion that genetic technology is an essential tool that should only be used to enhance human health. To avoid the hazards of credibility and reliability that arise from the use of statistics in arguments, Hayes has used a hyperlink that would direct the audience to the original source of the statistics. Secondly, he uses authoritative testimony when he asserts that genetic technology would be useful in treating devastating genetic conditions such as Tay-Sachs. To affirm the authority of his information, Hayes provides a hyperlink that directs the audience to the webpage of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Deductive reasoning is the approach whereby the author uses one or more statements to support a premise. It relies on references to enhance the reliability of the premise.

Appeals to Ethos and Pathos

Hayes establishes authority in his argument through the use of statistics, authoritative testimony, and authoritative language to support his premise. For example, he points to the quantitative study by Professor Green, whereby about 80 percent of the respondents did not support Green’s recommended application of genetic technology. He uses his position as a reliable authority in neo-eugenics to provide alternative explanations to the claims that Professor Green had indicated in his article. Hayes uses pathos to appeal to fear in the parents so that they do not adopt this new procedure, as described by Professor Green.  “Even parents opposed to manipulating their children’s genes would feel compelled to participate in this race, lest their offspring get left behind”, Hayes asserts. The emotional connection that Hayes makes using this statement is relevant and persuasive. He makes an emotional appeal to the parents to reject embryo gene editing by cautioning them that they would not desist from the procedure once they try it. Simultaneously, he also appeals to the policymakers not to allow this procedure because of the emotional pressure it will have on a large number of parents.

Conclusion

The arguments that Hayes made in his essay are persuasive. He uses logos, ethos, and pathos to persuade the parents and policymakers to desist from neo-eugenic procedures that scientists promote just for the sake of it. He uses statistics from Professor Green’s quantitative study and a credible global database to support his premise that genetic technology should only be used to promote human health. He also uses authoritative testimony to support his conclusion that policymakers should only formulate laws and regulations that encourage the ethical use of genetic technology to save lives.

Work Cited

Hayes, Richard. “Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks” The Washington Post. April 15,      2008, https://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR200804150   1620.html