In this magazine commentary, Tom Purcell attempts to discuss the issue of ethics with the

advancement of technology in genetic engineering through presenting a conversation where

a doctor markets the idea of genetically engineering a child to a couple who plan to be
parents. In recent decades, there is a dramatic acceleration in the pace of development and
adoption of technology in every aspect of our lives. As a result of this potential, humans are
burdened with the responsibility to use this technology to prevent abuse of precious life.
Genetic engineering is one of the biggest scientific breakthroughs as it presents the
opportunity of manipulating the future characteristics of life. Through this commentary,
Purcell first introduces genetic engineering and its role in the development of custom design
babies with biotechnology advancements.. It explores the boundaries of ethics in sciences
as the couple questions more about the process of genetic engineering. It then ends with the
questioning of the impact of moral values in the promotion of science, specifically, genetic
engineering.

The commentary begins by pointing out how advancement of biotechnology has enabled
custom-designing of babies. In describing what custom-designing is all about, the Doctor-led
conversation allows the reader to understand how custom-designing goes beyond the
changing of physical features.(ii) Rather, this change is one that affects the intrinsic features
of human life, from a biological point of view. (i) In pointing out how change of one’s
appearance is the not the limit the individual reaches in biological custom-designing,
According to Purcell, through biotechnology, parents are able to control the features of their
child. This is shown when the doctor lists down that they are able to ‘help parents determine
the height, weight, eye colour, and IQ of their children, just for starters.” The initial long list of
different features highlights to the reader how impressive the customisation of babies is as
the doctor. The use of the phrase “just for starters” implies that modifying a child’s features is
just the tip of the iceberg and there will be plenty more modifications that will follow in future.
As a reader, this creates a cause for concern for the writer hints about further changes that
defy conventional understanding of what custom-designing is all about. It is the break from
conventional understanding that makes this section of the text interesting - persuading the
reader to read on. As mentioned, it is at this juncture the Doctor reveals how custom-
designing is not limited to the extrinsic. It goes beyond it. In highlighting the intrinsic changes
custom-designing makes, the author makes use of lexical bundles such as bundles such as
‘blood sample’ and ‘saliva specimens.’ These field specific lexis for science starkly shows to
the reader how custom-designing is an intrinsic process as blood and samples are one of
the fundamental building blocks in an individual’s genetic makeup. These items used for the
‘procedure’ in the customisation of babies through knowing a child’s ‘DNA blueprint’ allows
the reader to then understand that this process is biologically intrinsic. This is because the
DNA is beyond the palpable eye, creating a distancing effect from the readers. This in
tandem allows the reader to acknowledge that this meticulous modification procedure
requires a deeper understanding of science and biology. The technical terms used thus
creates a distance between the reader and the writer due to the unfamiliarity and uncommon
use of these technical terms. This allows the reader to understand that custom designing is a
procedure that is beyond the common understanding of a person as these technical words
are not commonly accessible. This also allows us to situate the context in which the
conversation takes place as parents don’t even know though this is a breakthrough - pointing
out how once again how custom-designing is an intrinsic change at both the levels of the
individual and society.
 - Such technical terms, this unfamiliarity that allows the reader to understand that
custom designing is way beyond of a common understanding of a person.
- Technical words that are not accessible to the knowledge of a common man
- This allows us to situate the context in which the conversation is taking place.
Parents dont know even though this is a breakthrough.

Furthermore, in the text, the use of lexical bundles such as ‘blood sample’ and ‘saliva
specimens’ suggests that this process requires a large amount of scientific research and
process to allow for the customisation of babies as these lexical bundles are not typically
used in daily language. Field specific lexis for science is also shown such as the referral to
the customisation of babies as a ‘procedure’ and knowing a child’s ‘DNA Blueprint.’ The use
of such impersonal and callous words creates a cold tone that gives off the feeling of the
subject as a scientific experiment, not a human baby.

This is then followed by a line of questioning by the couple as the doctor markets genetically
engineering their child, leading to branch onto more taboo subjects as the boundaries of
ethics in sciences are unraveled. As the doctor suggests using someone else’s embryo to
produce their child, the couple repeats the phrase ‘Using someone else’s genes to make our
baby?’ suggesting disbelief from what they are hearing. The general repetition of the
knowledge they have just acquired easily demonstrates their incredulity. This bewilderment
in the usage of another person’s embryo to produce a child of their own is controversial as a
child is traditionally procreated through marriage and is significant to the lineage. With the
usage of another’s embryo, this leads to the conflict of traditional and modern values. This
then centres around the discussion of where the boundaries of ethics in sciences lay. Over
the course of the conversation, the couple, who initially asked about the procedure, then
started questioning whether genetic engineering allows readers to be aware of inherent
moral values. This is shown in the text as the stance of the couple on the preciousness of life
strengthens as they defend through the use of tripling that children are ‘cheerful, loving and
blessings from God.’ The couple also poses a rhetorical question, ‘Do we really want the
power to manipulate the genetic makeup of our children?’ which provokes the reader to think
about the consequence of disrupting natural life with the advancement of technology. It then
ends with the doctor asking,’Meaning? What’s all this silly talk about meaning?” The contrast
between ‘silly’ and ‘meaning’ causes the reader to consider the relationship between the two.
This rhetorical question posed towards the audience allows the reader to reflect upon the
value that they hold to life and what humanity really means to them.

When paying attention to the genre features of this magazine article, as a text type,
contributes to the reader’s understanding of its intended message. This can be seen when
analysing the commentary that there is a linear structure of questioning from the couple to
the doctor. This structure allows the reader to appreciate the context answering the stated
idea. Through an appreciation of this context, the reader then is able to examine both sides
of the argument in which the doctor values science whereas the couple values morals living
in life. This in tandem, provokes the reader to assess the impact of moral values in the
promotion of science. In this interview this is shown as the couple questions . As the couple
questions the process of the custom-designing of babies, the answers provided by the
doctor leads to the provision of a larger volume of information which results in more
questioning. Yet, while the tone of the couple is one of discomfort as the excessive use of
questions represents the uncertainty that shrouds the subject, the doctor represents with
enthusiasm. This enables the reader to pay attention to the different attitudes that both
parties have towards genetic engineering due to the conflict of values. As a result, this leads
to the reader accessing which value serves to be important as the couple and the doctor
acts as two different parties bringing up legitimate points for this discussion. It challenges the
reader to evaluate the ideas and characteristics of the relationship between moral values
and science as science progresses.