Preface: With the feedback received from my peers and professor, my goal with this new revised essay is to provide more textual evidence and work on explicitly connecting my topic sentences with my thesis. Along side, the structure was polished and minor errors were corrected.
Deisi Bautista
March 4, 2019
In Buzz Feed article, “The Genetically Engineered Twin Girls in China May Carry Dangerous Genetic Mutations, Experts Warm”, Dan Vergano provides an unbiased and informative perspective on recent events in the genetic engineering field. Scientist, Jiankui He and Michael Deem edited the genes of twin girls to make them immune from HIV. This sparked a tendentious conversation on the role of ethics in scientific research. Vergano along with the rest of the scientific community calls into question the degree to which individuals should place themselves and others at risk for the possibility of a new scientific discovery. Vergano efficiently helps the reader produce their own stance on the ethics debate by providing credible, unbiased information. In addition, the article’s structure aids in establishing a clear purpose to suffice.
In order to successfully present the controversy, Vergano makes his credibility a priority. By providing sources, linking the audience to related websites, videos and past Buzz Feed News articles, Vergano becomes a valid voice in the discussion. His audience can then use his voice, contribute or deflect it. Soon after the article was initially posted, Vergano updated the article with comments from Prof. David Taylor from the University of Texas. As stated, “Without the twin’s results being published there is no way to verify if intended or unintended changes were made. The rate of unintended effects in lab experiments is ‘all over the place’, he added, sometimes frequent and sometimes rare.” This suffices for first hand research and shows the complexity of the debate. Vergano is willing to continuously issue corrections and updates on the conversation in order to provide the most accurate information to the public. Despite what Vergano’s credentials are in the field of genetic engineering, his audience knows that his research and commitment to writing an informative and accurate article extended beyond what is available online. He sought viable input by those educated in the field, like Dr. David Taylor. Unlike many Buzz Feed articles, Vergano does not simply refer to his sources as “experts” or “sources” but named them and the institutions associated with them. David Taylor is an expert on genetic testing and an outsider in this case. Unlike the majority of Chinese scientist, Taylor does not completely denounce the experiment. Taylors response regarding the issue exemplifies the division and complexity of the situation. With such mutations, the CRISPR community is making great strides but without final results, the experiment is “all over the place” (Taylor). It is not certain that targeting a gene won’t target some other gene and create some sort of turmoil.
The article itself is very deceiving; the long and detailed title is simplified to attract the most clicks but does not match its dense substance. Such tactic was a strategic move, by appealing to a larger audience, and so the conversation continues. This is also due to its platform, Buzz Feed News. As a media company, their goal is to gain revenue while delivering media news and entertainment. Unlike the many writers on the platform, Vergano uses an abundance of scientific terms and abbreviations. This use of jargon is best suited for those in the scientific community or at least possess some slight interest. For example, the term “CRISPR” is introduced within the “intro” but not defined until mid-article. It is briefly defined as: “a famously precise method for editing genes in animals” (Vergano). It is merely defined to transition into the recent studies and controversies found in CRISPR, not for those with minimal knowledge on the subject. In addition, when scrolling to the comment section of the article, the jargon used in the article is not reciprocated. Instead, one is met with comments such as: “This is how we get zombies!” and “this is so eerily similar to the beginning news reports in I Am Legend”. The authors diction and jargon calls for scientifically driven individuals. However, the jargon is efficiently utilized since it provides all the resources to understand the situation. The audience can then use it and formulate an educated opinion. For example, Vergano writes: “a pair of studies in the journal Nature Biotechnology jarred the gene-editing world by finding CRISPR off-target effects could damage a gene that protected people from cancer in both eye cells and the stem cells that the body uses to repair injuries”. This information is used to weigh against the argument of genetic engineering to fight off HIV.
The articles structure is intended to work towards the open-ended question: “Is Scientist He and his team’s actions justified”. By providing the scientific background and reasoning for the genetic mutation, the controversy and backlash, it left its audience with an open-ended conclusion. Forcing one to create a stance. Informing and persuading contribution to the debate is fulfilled through this structure. In addition, the placement of ads works to divide the article into said components. Such tactic is helpful to those with little to no knowledge of the field of genetic engineering, i.e. those mindlessly scrolling Facebook. Its structure is significant in that it helps convey the purpose of the article; it is meant to inform the reader on experiments conducted overseas and create a conversation on the role of ethics in the sciences. Vergano’s purpose in writing the article is clear throughout and exemplified by him having a neutral stance and tone.
Throughout the article, Vergano holds a consistent nonbiased tone, however by allowing He’s argument to have the final thought, it slightly breaks the neutral tone. The lingering argument that “families need this technology” (Vergano), appeals to almost everyone. Family is a subject nearly everyone takes personally; to what lengths would you go to secure the safety of a loved one and potentially someone else’s loved one? The rhetorical technique of ethos is used in favor of the genetic mutation while the rhetorical technique of logos is used to argue against genetic mutation. Deciding which argument is stronger is subjective but both aid the reader in forming an opinion.
Overall, in popular source writing the main objective is to reach and inform an audience. Vergano successfully achieved this. Vergano strategically employed the rhetorical techniques of tone, jargon, and purpose to further the discussion of the role of ethics in scientific experiments. Such tactics in popular media is vital, since it brings the distant world of science closer to the average individual. Vergano efficiently bridged the gap between a scientific controversy and a casual discussion. It is important to be aware and take in one’s surroundings and be critical of the. For example, some of the reader’s thoughts only consists of the possibility of “zombies” after reading this article. However, they now have scientific evidence to support their theories and that’s the important part.
Works Cited
Vergano, Dan. “The Genetically Engineered Twin Girls In China May Carry Dangerous Genetic Mutations, Experts Warn.” Buzz Feed. Science, Nov. 26, 2018. Web. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/crispr-twins-off-target-effects
