Prompt: During AP Language and Composition in 11th grade, we did a long-term research project second semester. The goal was to choose a controversial topic, complete a series of blog posts, and then write an op-ed or letter arguing your opinion at the end. I personally choose the topic of Genetic engineering of human genes and wrote an Op-Ed to the school newspaper (Wootton Common Sense) with my student peers in mind for an audience. In the Op-Ed I was tasked with effectively arguing my view on the topic in a way that resonated with the audience and effectively shifted their opinion. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Op-Ed: A Brave New World
Imagine a world with competing species instead of political parties, with physical trends instead of material, with “build-a-baby” instead of “build-a-bear”, and with modified citizens instead of natural; a “new world”, driven by the dominating prevalence of genetic engineering. However, this time I am not referring to genetically modified food, but the modification of our very own human genes. The once untouchable, permanently unique part of our bodies could endure the whim of our doctors. The odds of getting blue eyes from our brown-eyed parents no longer impose a problem. That’s right, biology students. No more pedigrees or heredity to learn about. However, that constitutes the exact issue with genetic engineering that pedigrees and heredity both have in common; they involve the future of our genes, which may not be very bright.
We as teenagers highly value physical appearance. We judge people based on how they look; it proves unavoidable. Our flaws reveal our weaknesses. But we must endure them because we cannot control them; we only conceal them, but genetic engineering would allow you to replace your pesky imperfections with more desirable traits. You can finally have the envied strength, brilliance, blue eyes or height of your peers, but you would also lose your individuality, or that which defines you as different and unique. If everyone had genetic access to Adele’s musical talent or LeBron James’ athletic ability, what would make them stand out in the public’s eye? The future high school sports teams may even consist of unfairly and unnaturally bulked up players. This would make the once fun, social sport painful event in more than one way.
However, I am leaving out an important contribution that genetic engineering would provide. In Biology class you most likely learned about the horrifying, often fatal genetic diseases that some unlucky kid out there gets from his parents, not even living long enough to learn to ride a bicycle. Genetic engineering’s central focus originally concerned the potential to improve disease prognosis and gene therapies that could cure many young patients suffering from genetic diseases such as Tay Sach’s disease, an incurable degenerative genetic disease. Therefore, there is an important moral distinction between genetic engineering that is used for curing versus improving one’s genes. The main concerns about this difference involve the use of germline manipulation. Unlike many procedures that modify your physical appearance, germline manipulation alters genes that impact all succeeding generations of the patient. Thus, the line between what defines a practical or beneficial use as opposed to a trivial, superficial application starts to blur.
We Americans live in a success-driven world, and if enhancing our bodies would maximize our potential, then of course we will go full speed ahead and dismiss any risk involved. The problem occurs when we become too desensitized to the potential long-term risks, and the procedure becomes the status-quo. If this would occur, genetic traits may become a self-defeating and commercialized trend in a society in which everyone becomes externally motivated. Our once unique traits may become advertised on billboards alongside Coca Cola or Abercrombie. You would be able to flip through catalogs and find “Blue Eyes Are Best,” or “2 inches taller for only $2000.” Stores for new popular genes may line the streets becoming America’s sole obsession. We may even begin looking like the eccentric, colorful citizens in The Hunger Games. Also, since genetic engineering will not initially offer an affordable option to all Americans, a greater socio-economic gap between classes (or even species) might result; maybe even causing a future civil war between competing natural and modified citizens.
Therefore, if we let the desire to remove every imperfection run our lives, then we will lose sight of the other natural benefits of society surrounding us. By trying to change what we were created to achieve, we would literally undermine a bright attainable future and the talents already in our possession. Germline manipulation’s current unrestricted state offers too much room for error for impulsive teens whose frontal lobes are still developing. Therefore, its application should only apply to medical cures and not physical or even narcissistic needs, not only for our own benefit but for the future of America.
Op-Ed: A Brave New World
Imagine a world with competing species instead of political parties, with physical trends instead of material, with “build-a-baby” instead of “build-a-bear”, and with modified citizens instead of natural; a “new world”, driven by the dominating prevalence of genetic engineering. However, this time I am not referring to genetically modified food, but the modification of our very own human genes. The once untouchable, permanently unique part of our bodies could endure the whim of our doctors. The odds of getting blue eyes from our brown-eyed parents no longer impose a problem. That’s right, biology students. No more pedigrees or heredity to learn about. However, that constitutes the exact issue with genetic engineering that pedigrees and heredity both have in common; they involve the future of our genes, which may not be very bright.
We as teenagers highly value physical appearance. We judge people based on how they look; it proves unavoidable. Our flaws reveal our weaknesses. But we must endure them because we cannot control them; we only conceal them, but genetic engineering would allow you to replace your pesky imperfections with more desirable traits. You can finally have the envied strength, brilliance, blue eyes or height of your peers, but you would also lose your individuality, or that which defines you as different and unique. If everyone had genetic access to Adele’s musical talent or LeBron James’ athletic ability, what would make them stand out in the public’s eye? The future high school sports teams may even consist of unfairly and unnaturally bulked up players. This would make the once fun, social sport painful event in more than one way.
However, I am leaving out an important contribution that genetic engineering would provide. In Biology class you most likely learned about the horrifying, often fatal genetic diseases that some unlucky kid out there gets from his parents, not even living long enough to learn to ride a bicycle. Genetic engineering’s central focus originally concerned the potential to improve disease prognosis and gene therapies that could cure many young patients suffering from genetic diseases such as Tay Sach’s disease, an incurable degenerative genetic disease. Therefore, there is an important moral distinction between genetic engineering that is used for curing versus improving one’s genes. The main concerns about this difference involve the use of germline manipulation. Unlike many procedures that modify your physical appearance, germline manipulation alters genes that impact all succeeding generations of the patient. Thus, the line between what defines a practical or beneficial use as opposed to a trivial, superficial application starts to blur.
We Americans live in a success-driven world, and if enhancing our bodies would maximize our potential, then of course we will go full speed ahead and dismiss any risk involved. The problem occurs when we become too desensitized to the potential long-term risks, and the procedure becomes the status-quo. If this would occur, genetic traits may become a self-defeating and commercialized trend in a society in which everyone becomes externally motivated. Our once unique traits may become advertised on billboards alongside Coca Cola or Abercrombie. You would be able to flip through catalogs and find “Blue Eyes Are Best,” or “2 inches taller for only $2000.” Stores for new popular genes may line the streets becoming America’s sole obsession. We may even begin looking like the eccentric, colorful citizens in The Hunger Games. Also, since genetic engineering will not initially offer an affordable option to all Americans, a greater socio-economic gap between classes (or even species) might result; maybe even causing a future civil war between competing natural and modified citizens.
Therefore, if we let the desire to remove every imperfection run our lives, then we will lose sight of the other natural benefits of society surrounding us. By trying to change what we were created to achieve, we would literally undermine a bright attainable future and the talents already in our possession. Germline manipulation’s current unrestricted state offers too much room for error for impulsive teens whose frontal lobes are still developing. Therefore, its application should only apply to medical cures and not physical or even narcissistic needs, not only for our own benefit but for the future of America.
Reflection: Overall, I ended up receiving an 88 on this assignment but only after many drafts and corrections. I definitely had some trouble determining a way to connect to the audience with such a complex and unfamiliar topic. However, once I started to discover what about my topic would be important to my audience my ideas slowly began to develop and successfully argue my point.