2) Analyse how Mrs Walter presents this report on the decision of the House of Lords made in February 2002.
What kind of language and point of view does she choose and what is their effect?
Natasha Walter’s article appears to be like a speech to make people think about genetic engineering and its possible dangerous consequences that affect all human beings and the whole world. She uses many stylistic devices to emphasize her statements. She addresses her article to higher educated people as she uses a quite professional language that especially scientists are familiar with. At the same time she gives many explanations of technical terms to make everything more understandable for the normal middle-class readership. Showing her own opinion of genetic engineering and research in general she refers to well-known persons like Aldous Huxley or Robert Lanza. Here, she writes in an ironical way what gives the reader a distinctive impression of her thoughts.
Mrs Walter already shows irony in the first sentence where it says that the decision concerning further genetic engineering has been taken “in the venerable atmosphere of the House of Lords” (l.1). She respects politicians and their decisions but it seems as if she doubts their decisions being good ones. The expressions “House of Lords” and “Lords” are repeated several times. Maybe she wants to stress the Lords’ responsibility for the consequences of genetic engineering in their decisions. In addition to that it shows the powerlessness of ordinary people in contrast to the Lords who decide in favour or against stem-cell research and whose opinion counts in this context. The author describes scientists’ work with cells as “to dabble in cells” (l.4) what appears to be more like playing rather than seriously working. Somehow the author sees the scientists as not being aware of the seriousness of their job when working with living cells belonging to human beings and deserving kind of respect. People are supposed to realize that the Lords’ decision is one concerning life affecting human beings. It is not a game and before allowing limitless genetic engineering we really have to consider carefully what we declare as permitted and what should be avoided to protect human life and dignity. But what has been decided by the House of Lords has been discussed for such a long time and for many people it already belongs to their lives that “such a decision has almost lost its potential to surprise us” (l.6). Therefore it “[hardly feels revolutionary] to allow limited research using cloned human embryos” (ll. 22f.) because progress in genetic engineering is nothing new for people. If the Lords had not agreed to a limited research some scientists would have tinkered with embryos’ cells without political agreement.
The author compares the consequences of the Lords’ decision to an “Aldous Huxley novel” (ll.2f.). Aldous Huxley wrote the novel Brave New World dealing with a world where embryos no longer grow in wombs in their mothers’ bodies but where people are created in factories and where everyone’s life and living conditions are predetermined before birth. The Lords’ decision seems to be the first official step into such a Brave New World. The readers who know this novel are supposed to think about living in such a world without emotional relationships and no possibilities of change in life as everything is predetermined. Furthermore the author mentions possible achievements in genetic engineering as a “tale” (l.5.8) and stresses that these do not have anything to do with reality. Huxley’s Brave New World is not real and it would be horrible for humanity if it became reality. It could also turn out to be horrible if dreams of the perfect à la carte baby were made reality. Here, the author warns her readership not to lose their sense of reality as “what is now possible in genetic science has already way outrun reality” (l.12).
Mrs Walter continues in a way as if she was tired of the development in genetic engineering and tired of the people who adapt to these changes easily and without thinking about their doing. “So much has been talked about designer babies” (l.11) and now people have imaginations of the scientists’ accomplishments that cannot be fulfilled and that have even lost any sense of reality. The author talks about couples who cannot conceive a baby naturally and who think they could order a “perfect à la carte baby” (l.16). This expression is really ironical. People think they can order a baby as they order a meal in a restaurant. In their eyes scientists are magicians who “just wave a wand” (l.18) and fulfill the miracle that people expect them to do. Obviously this shows that many people already lost their sense of reality and do not realize this movement towards absolute control over human life. The author stresses this loss of reality by using a simile that looking “at the reality of the designer baby stories […] is a lot cruder than the science-fiction dreams” (ll.19f.). Nobody realizes that the person himself and his character are less important but that appearance, intelligence and the absence of diseases are more important for couples thinking of children. These changes in people’s minds seem to be strange but they are not. People are used to progress, they are used to the process of genetic engineering because these have become something like routine in our society. Working with cells of embryos “hardly feels revolutionary” (l.23).
In the following part of the article the author illustrates people’s attitudes towards a future based on progressive science. She uses repetitions like people “are beginning to believe” (l.27) that they would like to have control over the whole life. With the help of progress people get to know more and more possibilities to improve life and living conditions and this leads to an endless thirst for new inventions. Their wishes of getting more control and being able to create perfect people become great demands. People want changes and are not satisfied with their actual situation any longer. In this part of the article Mrs Walter writes mainly in the conditional II what emphasizes the irrationality of the people’s demands and what points at the uncertainty if those wishes will ever come true in later times. It is not predictable what the future will be like. “All babies should be perfect” (ll.28f.) but nobody thinks about the consequences when all people will be alike and almost perfect. The author includes herself to the hope of many people “that old age itself should one day pretty soon – and hopefully in time for [their] retirement – be curable” (ll.31f.). She does not judge on genetic engineering and progress in general. In her opinion genetic engineering is inevitable. If people had not been curious and progressive in earlier times we would still be “thinking that 40 was a ripe old age and still having a dozen children in the hope that one would survive until adulthood, no doubt” (ll.35f.). In the text, one can find many rhetorical questions like “where would we be?” (l.35) concerning progress in the past. The author herself always gives the answers to her questions. Her intention does not seem to be supposed to make the readers think about her words to find an own opinion but to listen to her personal opinion and so to make them believe in her words and to convince them. Again she uses repetitions like “we can” (l.37) what gives the impression of the author not really being convinced about possible developments in the future. She seems to be doubtful concerning the future because “we can fantasise that we might become a perfect race” (ll.40f.) but nobody can predict what will happen to them in reality. As I already mentioned before Natasha Walter talks about a well-known person named Robert Lanza and quotes what he said “after his company cloned the first human embryo in the
The author goes on pointing out what she really thinks about Lanza’s opinion by using a lot of examples to stress her own thoughts. Many diseases may be cured by achievements in genetic engineering but scientists cannot help people to care for their individual lives. Diseases are often caused by the people’s unhealthy way of life rather than by ill genes. In general you can say that Mrs Walter wants people to consider their social problems and how to solve them on their own before looking for solutions in genetic engineering. People want to control life, want to change the world, but before they definitely have to change themselves. Scientists can improve babies’ genes that they will be free from diseases but when they grow up to young adults they can disturb their ‘perfect’ predestined bodies themselves. Maybe babies can be formed in a way not to get diseases like diabetes but this scientific interference cannot guarantee a life-long protection from diabetes. In these days, even children get a form of diabetes “known to affect only overweight adults” (l.55) as they are not taught about good and healthy nutrition.
Genetic engineering cannot help in such cases. People themselves have to avoid or at least solve those personally caused problems. Dealing with this problem Mrs Walter writes in a very urgent way. She herself admits that she does not think about what she is doing. Nobody can excuse himself because: “Of course we do!” (l.70): People do care about their health but they prefer doing what they want to do and living how they want to live. They want to live a normal life and this means not to care about everything all the time but to live right now. That is why the author wants her readers to be honest and to realize their problems they have to solve on their own. People want control and power in the world but they do not appear to be willing to do anything for their wishes’ realisation. “They want to eat what they like and do what they like and still live as long as they want” (ll.72f.). The author wants to show that somehow people live in two worlds. On the one side they want changes but they do not want to change themselves and to adopt another world.
Besides social problems, “inequalities in the world” (l.78) cause problems. Here, Mrs Walter describes the contrast between rich and poor countries. In
In the end of her article, Natasha Walter gives a conclusion to her opinion of genetic engineering and instructs the reader how to behave facing such a progress in research. She does not judge on the scientists because “they are just doing what scientists do” (ll.82f.) but she appeals to the readers not to believe in scientists more than in themselves and their personal abilities to change their and others’ lives. As the title already mentioned: science cannot “save us from ourselves” (l.87). (2.008 words)
by Sarah Stöppel
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen