Student 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 hetrosexual 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 fuelling 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.