Monsters of the Brave New World
Carol Grunewald’s article is a comprehensive analysis of the harmful effects that the bioengineering field has instilled or the potential harm it holds majorly on the animal population. In the opening lines of the introduction section, the author re-asserts her title by mentioning that the human populace bears the liability of creating monsters from experiments comprising of controlled growth and maturation of animal parts as well as human body parts. Descriptive terminologies such as hideous, evil, berserk and dark amongst others are used to pique the reader’s imagination to the abominable nature of bioengineering technologies in the scientific discipline. Grunewald asserts in her thesis that the creation of such creatures is the result of humanistic subconscious fears being expressed in the physical world. The fundamental concept used to ensure manipulated growth is genetic engineering where the genetic material is altered to create a superior breed.
To create pragmatism in her argument, the author presents the example of the super-pig, scientific creation that employed the application of a human growth gene in a pig’s system resulting to its genetic modification. As projected, the growth hormone yields the growth results yet the side effects attached to the process namely arthritis, partial blindness, reduced immunity to pneumonia and ulcers are the detrimental effects attached to the hormone. Other than the pigs, the writer mentions cross breeds referred to as the geeps, stemming from the use of goats and sheep. The rest of the publication is divided into three distinct sections each served by a sub-heading for the purposes of easy identification. Additionally, the sub-headings act as a guide that prepares the reader psychology on what information is dealt with in every identified section. Regarding the author, the sub-headings act as appraisers for the knowledge as to whether a given situation is addressed and restrictors to keep the author from veering off topic. This aids in article focus.
As opposed to the leading nature of the introduction section, the latter part is covered using various questions placed in strategic points to pique the readers for critical thinking. In the category, custom-designed creatures, Grunewald discusses the legislative framework that accorded legal capability to the scientific body for the application of genetic engineering on animals. With the monetary incentive, the subject expanded drastically in a period of fifteen years even under the opposition of the system by animal rights activists. Of notable concern is the ecological overturn that may be created by humanistic interruption the natural world to the detriment of all known life. The next category, how human, introduces the moral implication of genetic engineering by using introspective question that aid readers into making their own conclusions as to whether the practice is ethically fit. For instance, when a cross breed between a human and an animal occurs, is it likely to lead the human populace into forgetting what it feels to be human due to the animal genes in the body.
The detrimental aspect of commercializing genetic engineering is discussed in the category, life as property. Application of scientific technology and expertise for trade purposes leads to the loss of academic of professional meaning. In her conclusion, Grunewald notes that animals should be protected form the harmful exploitation of the scientific community by the assertion that they for part of the animal population that the humans are also part. A notable weakness however is that the publication is however biased noted from the fact that the author is an animal right lobbyist; most of the article information is very leading to the reader to align towards her standpoint. This should be overcome by the use of a debate format that is written in a sober manner representative of both sided of the argument and left for the reader to decide which side they would rather join in. Additionally, the article has some spelling mistakes like the word ‘beresk’ instead of ‘berserk’.