Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome Rhetorical Analysis
Germline engineering and stem cell research is highly controversial because many people believe that altering someone’s genes is playing God. According to Nicholas Wade in “Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome” with medical technology constantly advancing, there has been a call to stop all activity involving germline engineering due to the fact that those genes that are changed will then be passed on from one generation to another. Wade brings in a number of sources, from leading biologists to ethicists and some scientists who work on editing, to help him maintain a convincing and credible argument; in addition Wade uses logos to make us think about the issues and pathos to understand the dangers of not taking Germline Engineering seriously.
In his article from the NYTimes, Wade starts off by getting straight to the point by saying, “A group of leading biologists on Thursday called for a worldwide moratorium on use of a new genome-editing technique.” The reason for the halt is because these edited genes are passed on from one generation to another. And they don’t want to risk anything in the event that something goes wrong during one of the procedures like if the Crispr-Cas9 malfunctions or some type of calculation error were to happen because then that persons DNA and life would be at stake. It’s those types of things that we need to take into consideration before resuming any type of experiment.
Throughout his article, Wade uses strong sources to show knowledge and authority in order to boost his credibility. For example,he references, “A former president of the California Institute of Technology” David Baltimore, “a stem cell expert at Boston Children’s Hospital” George Q. Daley, and many other scientists that were un-named but were part of a “the group” (people who contributed to and published a scientific journal). He provided valuable information from experts to support his claims and ideas showing that he did his research on germline engineering.
Adding to his ethical appeals, Wade uses strong appeals to logos with many logical ideas and quotes from other experts. For example, Wades argues that the reason scientists asked for a halt with the use of the Crispr-Cas9 (the technology used for editing) is because, according to the NYTimes, George Q. Daley states:
It raises the most fundamental of issues about how we are going to view our humanity in the future and whether we are going to take the dramatic step of modifying our own germline and in a sense take control of our genetic destiny, which raises enormous peril for humanity
For as long as humanity has existed, change has been nature’s choice, and now we are taking things into our own hands. Is this something that we a prepared to be responsible for? This is one of many statements that support his claim that we need to stop and reasonably assess what we have at stake here. This treatment has the ability to fix “flaws” but the risk right now of continuing testing and moving onto humans is too high.
Wade employs strong logical appeals, along with an effective pathos near the beginning and the middle of his article. In the beginning, he uses a quote from David Baltimore stating, “You could exert control over human heredity with this technique, and that is why we are raising the issue.” He goes on to say, “Ethicists, for decades, have been concerned about the dangers of altering the human germline… Until now, these worries have been theoretical. But a technique invented in 2012 makes it possible…” By using these quotes he is making us think of the moral issues that may come up with this new type of technology and treatment, saying that we have to think of whether or not this is worth a potential hazard for us all. In another part his article he states, “The paper’s authors, however, are concerned about countries that have less regulation in science.” This causes great concern because now we know that there are other places that are either not regulated or nowhere near regulated as much as we are. And they have the means to continue to test on unhealthy embryos or possible embryos that are intended for use. With these quotes, he sets us up because it tells us that there is a possibility that scientists and others are ignoring the calls for a temporary halt and are continuing to work, with no concern for the safety of others.
Throughout his post, Nicholas Wade presents interesting information surrounding the recent request to pause gene editing for the sake of safety. He goes on to explain to us the reasons that top scientists urged others to halt; they’ve gotten so much information that they can’t keep up with understanding it, if it is it even ethical, and how will it affect those that inherited the genes. Wade also wants us to consider that other scientists and biologist want a complete ban on gene editing. Wade presents an article in the hopes of pulling us in, and for some readers at least, he accomplishes it. Overall, this was a solid article that showed the perspective of how some biologists and scientists fell about gene editing. However, this article could have been much more credible if he added in more statistics like how beneficial gene editing would be versus no editing.
