De La O 1

Kate De La O

Instructor McCann

English 1301.127

03 November 2021

Analysis of “Why Worry About Genetically Modified Babies?”

Technological advancements in medicine have brought many cures but also many

concerns. Advances and the practice of genetic modification are now controversial. Jessica

Cussins and Marcy Darnovsky wrote "Why Worry About Genetically Modified Babies?" to

enlighten the public about the negative impact of genetic modification. Cussins and Darnovsky

successfully educate and persuade their audience about genetic modification utilizing rhetorical

appeals, formatting, and providing clarification. (Thesis Statement)

Before diving into the article, readers are aware of the authors' stance and the topic

discussed in the article because of the clever title "Why Worry About Genetically Modified

Babies?" Posing the title as a question specifies the aspects of the topic covered. In this case, the

article is going to express reasons and concerns about genetically modified babies. Cussins and

Darnovsky open the article by giving background information on the genetic modification

intentions. By presenting the counterargument for genetic modification, the authors establish

credibility, as they are not only stating their point of view and introduce the reader to other

opinions. Respecting counterarguments, they express the good intentions of scientists' reasons

for genetic modification to prevent the passing of mitochondrial disease from a parent to their

offspring. This allows the reader to take a stance on the situation without the authors' implication

that the opposing argument is morally wrong, shamed upon, or evil. With so many new
 De La O 2

discoveries, new limits are being tested. The driving force of the authors' opinion against genetic

modification is clearly stated, as the perpetual use of germline modification in the United States.

Cussins and Darnovsky break down their argument into two categories: political/social aspects

and nuclear genome transfer to simplify an already complicated topic. When discussing the

political/social effect of genetic modification, the authors explain how the actions of one country,

the U.K, in genetic modification, affect other countries with biological advancements, the United

States. Thus, implying that the targeted audience is anyone and everyone who lives in a country

with advanced biotechnology. Then explaining how the U.K is on the verge of allowing

mitochondrial replacement in fertility clinics will later influence the U.S to do the same, supports

the authors' claim of uncontrolled genetic modification, as the U.S does not have any laws

limiting genetic modification like the U.K. Though the feared nuclear genome transfer is not yet

possible, the authors suggest that the jump from mitochondrial transfer to nuclear genome

transfer is not far off. They support this assumption by providing a poll conducted in 1988 by the

UCLA conference, "Engineering the Human Germline," revealing that some scientists were

looking forward to nuclear genome transfer not only in babies but adults as well (Cussins and

Darnvosky, Why Worry About Genetically Modified Babies? 2). Even with limited genetic

modification research and discoveries of that time. Cussins and Darnovsky state that "if nuclear

genome transfer were allowed, it could be used for any purpose" in the U.S, including the

creation of "designer babies," which are babies who were genetically modified to receive certain

features, either physical and/or cognitive (Why Worry About Genetically Modified Babies? 2).

Genetic modification has never been, and never will, be black and white. Cussins and

Darnvosky point out that the public have misconceptions on genetic modification due to the
 De La O 3

simplicity in which it is being presented. Advocates for genetic modification argue that the

mDNA (mitochondrial DNA) modifications, does not define genetic modification, as opposed to

nDNA (nuclear DNA) modifications. However, as stated by the authors, mDNA and nDNA are

closely intertwined and modifications done to one undoubtedly affects the other. (Elaborate

more on the misinformed/uniformed patients)

The use of rhetorical appeals throughout the article is evident and effectively persuades

the reader to side with the authors' stance. When presenting the genetic modification situation

that the U.K is currently handling, the authors depict the decision to continue advancements in

nuclear genome transfer as the breaking of moral laws that before "had been respected by the

scientists globally" (Cussins and Darnovsky, Why Worry About Genetically Modified Babies?

1). Then continues by explaining that if the U.S decides to partake in nuclear genome transfer, it

too breaks the globally understood laws of nature. To incite guilt amongst the audience and the

U.K, the authors state how any complications and errors would lay upon the shoulders of those

pushing and practicing nuclear genome transfer. Securing this stigma, the authors declare that

trials of nuclear genome transfer in animals frequently produced dozens to a hundred nonviable

offspring. Meaning the chance of losing and damaging a human's life is high. Using the logical

and ethical appeal, the Cussins and Darnovsky cite the U.K Department of Health to support

their assertion that nuclear genome transfer is unnecessary as it is not to prevent the passing of

disease, like the mitochondrial genome transfer, but rather for cosmetic and trait enhancement.

(Pathos = women and children are victims of science, babies most venerable state)

(Conclusion)
 De La O 4

Works Cited

Cussins, Jessica, and Marcy Darnovsky. “Why Worry about Genetically Modified Babies?”

EBSCHO Host, Council of Responsible Genetics, 2014.

 De La O 5

Unit 3 Peer Review Workshop: Content

1. Yes, her thesis presents all that she is going to talk about and how she plans on formatting her

paragraphs. She states the authors of her peer reviewed article and explains what the article is

about.

2. It does not induled a idea that everyone would know about yet she provides information about

it and explains what her topic is mainly about.

3. Yes her essay is very cohesive about her topic and explains what she is doing and talking

about. She puts in many examples that help the reader understand why the author put that in the

article.

5. So far she has enough detail in all of her paragraphs, yet I'm not so sure on her conclusion

since it is not written yet but i'm sure it will have enough information.

7. The author's weaknesses in my opinion would be that she provides too many facts with not

enough transitions. As for her strengths she uses many words to elaborate and this really help

especially in her case because her topic is not that well known. So her doing this helps the reader

understand what the point she is trying to make.

8. I do not have any revisions for the author

Your questions:

1. Is there anything that is unclear? No, everything was very clear and easy to understand

what you were saying.

2. Where can my content be elaborated on? More elaboration on how and why the author

thinks the way he thinks, and why this is happening.

 De La O 6

3. Should there be more explanation about genetic modifications? You can never have too

much evidence and explanations so go ahead and add more.

4. Is my formatting correct? Yes your formatting is correct

5. Is there any repetition and redundant sentences? Nothing is redundant or being repeated.