Fatma Zourob

Zourob  1   Made-to-Order: The Ethical Dilemma of ‘Designer Babies’ Envision a world of genetic perfection where parents can manipulate the human genome of their embryos to eliminate hereditary diseases, engineer the flawless athletic body or simply design tomorrow’s leaders and scientists. These are the compelling depictions examined by scientific writer Johnjoe McFadden, a professor of molecular genetics at the University of Surrey. In the article, “Genetic editing is like playing God – and what’s wrong with that?” published by The Guardian, McFadden approves of genetic modification (GM) technology present today in the hands of scientists. He regards DNA manipulation as a powerful tool to “reduce, and eventually eliminate, the birth of babies with severe genetic diseases” (McFadden, 2016). The author addresses his target audience of anti-GM activists, parents and educators by asking the controversial question “What’s wrong with playing God?”. He employs the pathos appeal to persuade his audience to dispose of their moral judgement, despite of the ethical prospects to alter human evolution. Fundamentally, by citing medical sources, McFadden effectively persuades the reader that genetic modification can end human suffering, however his failure to address various counterpoints weakens his arguments. McFadden builds his credibility by presenting reputable sources and factual evidence that support his appeal to ethos and logos, as well as foster his argument. He provides the staggering statistic that “half a million - babies that will be born in the UK this year, about 4% will carry a genetic or major birth defect that could result in an early death, or a debilitating disease that will cause misery for the child and their family” (McFadden, 2016). McFadden further fortifies his argument to pursue genetic modification by citing renowned success stories in medicine as “Great Ormond Street Zourob  2   Hospital for Children in London recently used gene editing to treat a one-year-old girl with leukaemia, who is now in remission” (McFadden, 2016). By referencing a trusted medical institution, McFadden bridges the uncertainties in the reader’s mind to factual evidence. The author successfully persuades his audience to consider genetic modification as an alternative to extensive procedures performed later as a result of chronic diseases. The effort to keep the audience engaged is evident through McFadden’s details and choice of perplexing language. In addition to his ethos appeal, McFadden aggressively employs the pathos appeal in an attempt to manipulate the reader’s emotions. He questions human morality and ethics by comparing “gene editing of human embryos to eliminate disease” to the analogy of “using laser surgery to correct eye defects, or a surgeon operating on a baby to repair a congenital heart defect” (McFadden, 2016). His strong argument exposes the reader’s vulnerability against genetic modification by presenting a thought-evoking correlation. The author further asserts his stance on tampering with nature’s work by admitting “we are indeed playing God with our genes”. He counter argues this ethical dilemma by highlighting that “nature or whatever we want to call the agencies that have made us, often get it wrong and it’s up to us to correct those mistakes”(McFadden, 2016). His outright use of intrusive diction without pausing persuades the reader to harmonize with his firm tone. His appeal to pathos stirs emotions of uncertainty and bewilderment to the self-proclaimed altruists to put the welfare of humanity ahead of their ethical egoism. Developing this intense atmosphere successfully evokes the reader’s emotions to question their beliefs and moral stand. Despite of the provocative reactions, his ethical stance lacks logic and scientific reasoning in reinforcing the credibility of the thesis Zourob  3   By appealing to a diversified audience of opponents and supporters, McFadden acknowledges the controversy designer babies provoke due to the possibility of creating “healthier, cleverer or more beautiful” children. The author attempts to sympathize with the distrustful audience by imagining “a technology that would only be available to the super-wealthy, potentially creating the kind of divided society” (McFadden, 2016). This leaves room for the reader to visualize a society of dystopian super humans that lack individuality and character. However, his sympathy quickly loses its effectiveness on the audience by leaving these concerns to the future. McFadden’s fallacy to recognize human corruption and hunger for superiority and perfection damages the significance of his thesis and credibility. Despite the unarguable benefits of genetic modification, the audience cannot help but wonder about the future’s devastating consequences as a result of genetic manipulation. Throughout the article, McFadden stirs controversy by challenging his opponents’ moral compass to be called into question. He concludes by employing the pathos appeal to allow the audience to put themselves in the shoes of “parents of children born with haemophilia, cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy” (McFadden, 2016). By manipulating the audience’s emotions, he discloses his ethical stand on genetic modification for the purpose of “[eliminating] human suffering” (McFadden, 2016). The article’s rhetoric language and persuasive diction strengthens the author’s thesis and arguments. Most importantly, it keeps the audience engaged and actively mindful of the benefits and consequences of this technology. Overall, the author undoubtedly stands by his thesis throughout his article by pleading to the reader to consider GM technology. He begins his mission of persuasion by questioning the morality of society, followed by reputable Zourob  4   sources and statistics to support his claims and then once-again uses the pathos appeal for the final standoff. The layout of the article provides a solid, concise outline for the reader to follow, persuading them to agree with McFadden’s claims and successful emotional appeal, but his attempts to appeal to the audience’s emotions towards the end of the article leaves them questioning his validity and ultimately, his argument. McFadden captures the audience’s attention through his persuasive techniques and builds his credibility by referencing factual evidence, and successfully employing the pathos appeal. While the author does not convert all of his audience to GM technology supporters, he does produce a rather powerful thesis and supporting argument by depicting the reality of life threatening diseases with no cure. Ending with a prophecy of the future of the technology, McFadden, after persuading his audience of the potential benefits of designer babies, urges them to put aside their ethical viewpoints. He leaves the reader with the decision to restore the fate of GM technology for the sake of human welfare. The author successfully persuades his supporters and addresses his opponents’ concerns, but fails to sympathize with counterpoints opposing the use of a powerful technology. McFadden’s ethical stand lacks insight of a prospective world filled with models of perfection by neglecting these consequences of the technology in the future.           Zourob  5   Works  Cited   McFadden, Johnjoe.  Genetic editing is like playing God – and what’s wrong with that?   The  Guardian,  2016.