Genetically Engineered Children

The article “Genetically Engineered Children”, written by Tom Purcell for “The Cagle Post”,
is a humorous satire mocking science’s ambition to alter the cycle of life. The author makes
his position clear but does so through an informal conversation between the doctor and a set
of parents. The questions asked by the parents make it easy for a layman to understand the
power and perils of genetic engineering. Purcell cleverly portrays the doctor as more of an
annoying salesperson than a medical professional while making a strong statement that nature
should be left alone. This essay will examine how the author uses a cartoon, stylistic devices,
humor, rhetoric devices among others to humorously make a serious statement about the
author's morality and ethics.

The heading of the article, “Genetically Engineered Children” appears to reflect as a

scientific and informative article. However, in contrast, readers encounter a conversation
between a doctor and parents. The doctor in the article uses plural pronouns such as “we” and
“us”, suggesting that he is speaking on behalf of all doctors and researchers. His apathetic
tone is conveyed through remarks like “no offense.” Furthermore, in the article, the doctor is
not presented as helpful or trustworthy but is rather seen as a salesman since everything he
does is for a price. This is likely to be strange for certain readers since doctors are highly
regarded and generally adhere to strict codes of moral conduct.

The tone of the doctor is distinct from that of the parents. The doctor is excited and
supportive of the breakthrough whereas the parents are nervous about the future of science.
With the help of the satirical tone used, the irony is apparent throughout the article. For
example, the time it takes for “custom designing” a fetus is only “20 minutes”, which seems
insignificant in comparison to the lifespan of a child. The author assumes the readers
understand and are aware of the fundamental concepts of genetics by uses specific
terminology like “saliva specimen” and “DNA.”  However, even though the terms may seem
complex, the parents in the article are not informed of the risks involved. This encourages
readers to avoid becoming victims of medical misinformation, without understanding the
risks and potential failure. 
The use of colloquial language suggests that the doctor can communicate easily with his
parents. At the same time, the doctor abuses his power and treats his patients with disdain
since he excludes details that the parents deserve to know. Similarly, he dismisses the
religious beliefs of the parents by casually saying “whatever” when they mention God. The
doctor, who is only interested in making money, appeals to the parents, suggesting that they
have a “choice”. 

The image in the article shows a child in the hands of parents with remote control. It
represents the power of technology in our lives, and even in lives that have not entered the
world yet. Whether people like it or not, technology has taken over the world. The image can
also be taken humorously since the child is intelligent and knows how to use a smartphone,
even at a young age. This is complemented by the article which mentions babies need to be
perfect and modified.

The author incorporates pathos in the article in order to create an emotional appeal that tries
to engage with the audience on an emotional appeal. He achieves this when the doctor, who is
only interested in making money, appeals to the parents, suggesting that they have a
“choice”. In contrast, the doctor argues that social practices and beliefs represent “the old
way” and nature is depicted as weak.

Overall, it is evident through the doctor’s tone, literary devices, and rhetoric devices, the
author humorously questions the morality and ethics of doctors. Similarly, the articles attempt
to criticize any doctor who would want to carry out genetic engineering even though it causes
parents to concern about the ethics and morality of genetics.