Blogs - Genetically Engineered Children

Unseen Text: Genetically Engineered Children

Text Type: Blog

Guiding Question: Explore the conflict of values expressed in this extract. In what ways do this article and the illustration convey a serious point in an amusing manner?

The following response comments on the first SL text from the November 2014 examination, an online text from Daryl Cagle’s blog The Cagle Post, published in August 2012. Cagle is a celebrated American cartoonist. He is known for, amongst other things, his work with The Muppet Show, and for controversy surrounding a 2010 cartoon in which Cagle satirically reimagined the Mexican flag. Here, in a text authored by Tom Purcell, the serious social and ethical issue of genetic modification is presented in a humorous way; the mirth provoking a more sober consideration of an issue for our time.

The student writes very well and seems to have a good overview of the text. However, the response could be more effectively organized and, appreciating the limitations of time, the ideas are not always fully developed. The student shows reasonable insight into how language constructs meaning and effect, but like many fellow travelers, there is scope for improvement.

SAMPLE RESPONSE #1:

When we think of modern scientific advancements, we think of all the engineers and doctors at the forefront of innovation. Combining the knowledge and skills of the two professions has given rise to a particularly controversial ethical problem in the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries; that of genetic engineering and modification. This facetious article published online on August 21^st 2012 was written by a renowned ‘freelance writer and humour columnist’ Tom Purcell for the American ‘Daryl Cagle’s The Cagle Post: Cartoons and Commentary’. The article imitates a conversation between a doctor and a heterosexual couple about the possibility – indeed, the seemingly unlimited possibility – of genetically engineering their future child. Hence, the article may be intended for a middle-aged, middle-class audience – those that could be potentially be considering starting a family. Through the application of a satirical tone, dialogue, diction stereotypical of a doctor-patient relationship, and rhetorical questions, the article fulfils the purpose of highlighting underlying social issues, undermining social values and conventions, and directing questions towards the readers about them.

Graphology and compartmentalisation of texts are used to depict the humorous nature of the online publication; there are, for example, links persuading readers to ‘subscribe’ and read the ‘latest cartoons’, while following the social network links to further connect to similar articles. This works to lower the level of formality and seriousness of the article, as well as identifying the initial purpose of the audience for reading it; that is, entertainment. This is further emphasized through fonts that connote a comical function. The use of visual modes evident in the images shows the president of the United States, Barack Obama looking tired or perplexed and a cartoon version of Daryl Cagle panicking appeal to the sense of humour of the readers and shows that comics and commentaries, although often regarded lightly, are often based around real life situations, revealing social issues that can be understood by the audience who share a context of time and culture. This text is a good example of this.

The heading of the article, ‘Genetically Engineered Children’ appears to reflect a scientific, informative, or even educational content. However, in contrast, readers encounter a transcript of a conversation and not, for example, a research paper. The stereotypical nature of a dialogue between a doctor and his patients is portrayed through the question and answer structure. Many readers may have encountered a similar experience in asymmetrical discussion with medical professionals in which powerful doctors direct questions to less powerful patients. The doctor in the article uses plural pronouns such as ‘we’ and us’, suggesting that he is speaking on behalf of a community of doctors, engineers, and researchers. His condescending and apathetic tone is used is conveyed through remarks such as ‘no offence, but…’ Furthermore, the medical profession is not presented as healers, but rather as businessmen since everything they do is ‘for a price’. Doctors, therefore, are depicted as profit-driven and the medical world is their trading market. The conversation seems to take the form of an agent attempting to make a sale to a client. This is likely to strike readers as anomalous since doctors are a highly regarded occupational group who, it is believed, adhere to strict codes of moral conduct.

Through a satirical tone, irony is apparent throughout the article. For example, the time is takes for ‘custom design[ing]’ a fetus is merely ’20 minutes’, which seems insignificant in comparison to the lifespan of a child. Specific terminology such as ‘saliva specimen’ and ‘DNA’ assumes the reader has an awareness and understanding of the fundamental concepts of genetics. However, as complex and intellectual as these terms may seem, the potential parents in the article are not informed of the risks involved or the exact procedure. This may encourage readers to avoid becoming victims of medical misinformation, without understanding the risks and potential for success or failure. The article’s inclusion of colloquial language suggests that the doctor is able to communicate easily with his patients. At the same time, the doctor treats his patients with contempt since he excludes details that his patients deserve to know. Also, the doctor abuses his power to reinforce his outlook. He dismisses the religious beliefs of the parents by casually remarking ‘whatever’ when they mention God. The doctor, who is only interested in making money, appeals to the parents, suggesting that they have ‘choice’. In contrast, the doctor argues that conventional social practices and beliefs represent ‘the old way’. Nature is depicted as weak, and human intervention strong.

The article highlights contemporary values in society, asking readers to reconsider what they think or have been told is of importance. Society values ‘intelligence’. The article suggests that, parents strive to send their children to ‘Ivy League’ institutions, in the hope that their children will develop into great adults. However, one such educational institution, the University of Washington, is the root of ‘biotechnological’ controversy (where the article uses a lexical cluster, including ‘breakthrough’ and ‘new’ to describe it). This raises a question about where science and technology are taking human society. Is it for better or worse? Parents are unknowingly fueling the industry from which discoveries can be misused. Other social values include physical features, as described through similes: ‘skinny as a rail’ and ‘beautiful as a supermodel’. This shows society’s celebrity craze, and fear of physical flaws given that ‘imperfections’ are ‘obvious’. The happiness and individual needs of parents or their children is considered in a society where people are prepared to follow the crowd to where ‘all the rage’ is. In this kind of society artificial ‘processes’ replace nature. The text’s central image shows a child in the hands of its parents with a remote control, showing the power of technology in our lives, and even in lives that have not yet begun. The article concludes with a question in which the reader is asked to consider what the ‘meaning of life’ is.

SAMPLE RESPONSE #2:

This text is an article published online in The Cagle Post in 2012. In the context of historical time, 2012 may be regarded as a time where considerable controversy surrounded the idea of in vitro fertilization, or genetically engineering babies derived from the technological advancement of science and engineering. The article attempts to persuade the audience, who may be frequent readers of the website, potential parents, parents, or those considering in vitro fertilization to question the ‘production’ of babies through engineering, and to possibly reject this method by addressing the differences in values. The combination of word choice, syntax, and graphology effectively engage the audience.

The article is published in the form of a dialogue between a doctor and a patient, who may be considering genetically engineering their child, thus putting the intended reader in a position that parallels that of the patient in the article, whilst establishing a clear difference between the doctor and patient roles. The doctor in the text uses facts and research to establish credibility with his patient, and indirectly with the real reader. However, in using words such as ‘custom design’, ‘catalog’, and ‘mix and match’ – a lexical cluster suggesting product design – the doctor is portrayed as interested in humans as produce rather than sentient, living beings. The doctor is guilty of dehumanizing human beings. The effect of this puts the reader in a different position than the doctor, who may be a representative of real engineers and creators of this method of fertilization. In turn, the reader may be able to relate to the patient in the text, as they are addressed as more emotional human beings, having ethically sound beliefs, and considering children to be ‘blessings from God’. This contrasts with the doctor, who is addressed as an authoritative figure, claiming to have the power to alter humans.

Synthetic personalization connects the real reader to the patient in the article. Through the use of pronouns, such as ‘we’ and ‘our’, the text seems to include the actual reader, potentially developing a sympathetic perspective through, identifying with the patient, on the issue of genetically modified children. The patient in the article questions the doctor, provoking the reader to a similar critical questioning of the doctor’s views. Initially, the patient asks ‘what breakthrough, doctor?’ and ‘choices, doctor?’, questioning the doctor’s authority through mirroring the same phrases used by the doctor. In this way, the patient seems to ask questions that we should all ask of the medical profession in regard to genetic manipulation. The doctor, by contrast, addresses his patient as ‘you’ and ‘your wife’, suggesting that he is disassociated from the real lives of people.

The text ridicules the method of in vitro fertilization by mocking society’s expectations of physical appearance. The doctor suggests that ‘a bit chubby’ – potentially a euphemism for ‘fat’ – is negative, and something that can be improved by gene manipulation. The doctor then offers his patient a solution to ‘a bit chubby’, giving the patient the opportunity to have a daughter who is ‘as skinny as a rail’. The simile used to compare skinny to a rail is sarcastic. In everyday language, to be ‘skinny’ is negatively connoted, and it is not generally thought desirable to appear to look as malnourished as a ‘rail’. The text, then, derides genetic manipulation since the doctor offers choices that wider society would not want for their children. Through the doctor’s use of colloquialisms, the tone of the article becomes increasingly sarcastic, as it seems unusual for an authoritative figure such as a doctor to use this register.

The text names inspiring figures from the past to endorse the case against genetic engineering. Through mentioning people who have been successful without genetic modification the reader is again encouraged to side against in vitro fertilization. The real reader relates to the patient of the article who does not dehumanize babies. This can be contrasted to the dismissive doctor who says ‘whatever’, suggesting that he does not care for his patients.

The visual and written modes combine to creative a cohesive intertextual relationship. For example, the illustrated cartoon image of a baby holding a mobile phone addresses the issue of technology’s influence on society, suggesting that technology has become very significant in contemporary societies. Although the text may originally have been printed in colour, the polymodal effect of the text is that the reader is able to see the probable future influence of technology on today’s newly born children.

The website name is printed in large text, establishing the name for the reader to remember. The website also has links to social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and a ‘like’ button on the page, highlighting the technological and temporal context of the text, where readers are able to express opinions about the text and to share it with others.

The text conveys the issue of genetically engineering children, and how that can change the value of naturally occurring children instead of being able to modify it with desirable traits. The text addresses a serious social issue in an amusing way. However the audience does not have to read the text in any one way. Although the texts seems to be against artificial modification of children, readers may feel that there are good reasons for allowing or wanting to carry out genetic modification, and it could be argued that genetic modification is only really an extension of present medical practices.