Rhetoric At Its Finest (Original)

In 2017, a writer by the name of Jim Kozubek wrote an article called “Science and
Morality”. 2017 was a particularly significant year for biological engineering because
advancements in CRISPR gene editing finally allowed for genetic modifications in humans .
This phenomenon sparked many questions, such as to what extent should we, as a species, put
down our own beliefs and values for the purpose of scientific discovery? Jim Kozubek addresses
this topic with the article “Science and Morality”. Kozubek is a staff scientist and an author who
has affiliations with Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the writer of
“​Modern Prometheus: Editing the Human Genome with Crispr-Cas9​” as well as many other
articles that have to do with genetic science. It is safe to say that he is well educated in this field
and very qualified to be writing about this controversial topic. The target audience for this article
would be people that are well educated in this area, curious about the topic, or have an affiliation
with genetic modification.​ Kozubek successfully communicates his standpoint through the use of
ethos and logos, but comes short in his usage of pathos.
Kozubek uses ethos to communicate this idea by demonstrating not only his own
credibility, but also that of who he is borrowing direct quotes from. Kozubek starts off his article
by addressing all of the e-mails and messages that he has received concerning the advancements
of life sciences. He then shares the viewpoints of a biology teacher and a therapist who are
against CRISPR. They both share a similar fear for what the future may have in store for
CRISPR biotechnology. This segment also introduces the author’s idea that science solely
supports or discourages beliefs. For example, Kozubek uses a quote from Daniel Dennet, a
philosopher whose words were included in a bioethics report made public by the President’s
Council in 2008. His words were, “When we start treating living bodies as motherboards on
which to assemble cyborgs, or as spare parts collections to be sold to the highest bidder, where
will it all end?”(Dennet) This is just one example of Kozubek’s use of ethos in this article and he
effectively uses this rhetorical strategy again and again throughout the entire passage.
Kozubek heavily relies on the use of logos as well. In order to get his message across, he
uses and demonstrates his knowledge of the subject by giving examples of what could happen if
CRISPR continued to be developed and used. He uses logos in a way that one might not expect,
by posing a question. At this point in an article, the reader must have already put some thought
into their own beliefs on the subject. Kozubek recognizes this and he is able to relate these
beliefs with one universal belief, that life is precious. He brings up the question of dignity and
introduces his use of logos through asking rhetorical questions such as “where does it all end”. It
makes it obvious for the reader that CRISPR compromises dignity because it is literally, in a
sense, altering nature and life itself. All of this, combined with the reader’s beliefs,
communicates Kozubek’s opinion on the subject very effectively. He then ties this in with his
main idea by stating that science has not, and never will, completely be able to prove something.
Science can only be disproven and the same goes with beliefs. He says that science is a reliable
source of information that is supposed to provide support or discouragement to certain beliefs
that people may have. He makes his point very clear, on numerous occasions, that science should
not be the source of beliefs. He uses this example to communicate his viewpoint. “a hypothesis
cannot be proven, only disproven (one black swan proves not all swans are white, but more white
swans do not) since a given can never be completely proved.” (Karl Popper) By using this quote,
Kozubek is able to utilize both logos and ethos at the same time to support his standpoint.
Kozubek’s usage of pathos on the other hand was pretty faulty and rarely used given that
the article’s rhetorical focuses are primarily ethos and logos. Pathos could have been utilized
quite effectively. Since the article addresses science and “morality”, elaboration on the morality
side of the argument would have largely supported pathos and given more power to Kozubek’s
persuasion. He only skims over this rhetorical strategy and directs the majority of his focus
towards credibility and logic. As a result, this article is very much based on the legitimacy of the
topic rather than the emotion behind it. Pathos would have made Kozubek’s thesis more effective
and kept the readers emotionally invested in the topic throughout the article.

In conclusion, Kozubek was able to use the appropriate rhetorical strategies necessary to
get his message across. His decision to deliver his message through the use of logos and ethos
was very wise on his part because of the nature of the article. Biotechnology is a very complex
subject, especially when CRISPR and genetic modification of humans enter the picture. It’s
obvious that using direct quotes from credible sources, as well as himself, delivers his message
effectively through the use of ethos. It is also evident that by using real life examples/parables, to
communicate his idea to the reader, demonstrated an effective use of logos. Had Kozubek not
utilized these rhetorical strategies, his article would not nearly have been as persuasive as it
could of been for the reader because of the lack of credibility. I would not consider myself to be
part of the target audience because this is not an article that I would just pop open and read in my
own free time. However, given the circumstances that this article fell into my hands, I have been
persuaded by Kozubek and I totally agree with him. Readers who are actually apart of his target
audience may experience an even greater level of persuasion given that they most likely know
more about the subject. I would not have been persuaded had it not been for Kozubek’s effective
use of logos and ethos. He was able to make these rhetorical strategies work for him and subtly
deliver his message to the reader.

Word Count- 1046

Rhetoric At Its Finest (Revised)

In 2017, a writer by the name of Jim Kozubek wrote an article called “Science and
Morality”. 2017 was a particularly significant year for biological engineering because
advancements in CRISPR gene editing finally allowed for genetic modifications in humans .
This phenomenon sparked many questions, such as to what extent should we, as a species, put
down our own beliefs and values for the purpose of scientific discovery? Jim Kozubek addresses
this topic with the article “Science and Morality”. Kozubek is a staff scientist and an author who
has affiliations with Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the writer of
“​Modern Prometheus: Editing the Human Genome with Crispr-Cas9​” as well as many other
articles that have to do with genetic science. It is safe to say that he is well educated in this field
and very qualified to be writing about this controversial topic. The target audience for this article
would be people that are well educated in this area, curious about the topic, or have an affiliation
with genetic modification. Kozubek most effectively communicates his standpoint through the
use of ethos, logos, and kairos.
Kozubek uses ethos to communicate this idea by demonstrating not only his own
credibility, but also that of who he is borrowing direct quotes from. Kozubek starts off his article
by addressing all of the e-mails and messages that he has received concerning the advancements
of life sciences. He then shares the viewpoints of a biology teacher and a therapist who are
against CRISPR. They both share a similar fear for what the future may have in store for
CRISPR biotechnology. This segment also introduces the author’s idea that science solely
supports or discourages beliefs. For example, Kozubek uses a quote from Daniel Dennet, a
philosopher whose words were included in a bioethics report made public by the President’s
Council in 2008. His words were, “When we start treating living bodies as motherboards on
which to assemble cyborgs, or as spare parts collections to be sold to the highest bidder, where
will it all end?”(Dennet) This is just one example of Kozubek’s use of ethos in this article and he
effectively uses this rhetorical strategy again and again throughout the entire passage.
Kozubek heavily relies on the use of logos as well. In order to get his message across, he
uses and demonstrates his knowledge of the subject by giving examples of what could happen if
CRISPR continued to be developed and used. He uses logos in a way that one might not expect,
by posing a question. At this point in an article, the reader must have already put some thought
into their own beliefs on the subject. Kozubek recognizes this and he is able to relate these
beliefs with one universal belief, that life is precious. He brings up the question of dignity and
introduces his use of logos through asking rhetorical questions such as “where does it all end”. It
makes it obvious for the reader that CRISPR compromises dignity because it is literally, in a
sense, altering nature and life itself. All of this, combined with the reader’s beliefs,
communicates Kozubek’s opinion on the subject very effectively. He then ties this in with his
main idea by stating that science has not, and never will, completely be able to prove something.
Science can only be disproven and the same goes with beliefs. He says that science is a reliable
source of information that is supposed to provide support or discouragement to certain beliefs
that people may have. He makes his point very clear, on numerous occasions, that science should
not be the source of beliefs. He uses this example to communicate his viewpoint. “a hypothesis
cannot be proven, only disproven (one black swan proves not all swans are white, but more white
swans do not) since a given can never be completely proved.” (Karl Popper) By using this quote,
Kozubek is able to utilize both logos and ethos at the same time to support his standpoint.
Kozubek’s usage of pathos on the other hand was pretty faulty and rarely used given that
the article’s rhetorical focuses are primarily ethos and logos. Pathos could have been utilized
quite effectively. Since the article addresses science and “morality”, elaboration on the morality
side of the argument would have largely supported pathos and given more power to Kozubek’s
persuasion. He only skims over this rhetorical strategy and directs the majority of his focus
towards credibility and logic. As a result, this article is very much based on the legitimacy of the
topic rather than the emotion behind it. Pathos would have made Kozubek’s thesis more effective
and kept the readers emotionally invested in the topic throughout the article.
Kozubek’s usage of kairos greatly benefits the article mainly because of the timing of its
publication. CRISPR technology has been in use since the late 1980’s. CRISPR technology was
only being used on plants and animal test subjects. It was never tested on humans until recently.
Human CRISPR gene editing trials became available, starting in China, in 2017. Kozubek
released this article in that same year and by doing so, he strengthened his argument. Kozubek’s
use of Kairos, however simple, definitely added to the legitimacy of his argument. Not only has
Kozubek demonstrated his own expertise and knowledge of the subject, he has also made clear
the relevancy of the topic that he is discussing. His use of kairos was both necessary and
effective. In addition to his strong use of ethos and logos, Kozubek uses these rhetorical
strategies to persuade his audience even more and strongly demonstrate his credibility.
In conclusion, Kozubek was able to use the appropriate rhetorical strategies necessary to
get his message across. His decision to deliver his message through the use of logos and ethos
was very wise on his part because of the nature of the article. Biotechnology is a very complex
subject, especially when CRISPR and genetic modification of humans enter the picture. It’s
obvious that using direct quotes from credible sources, as well as himself, delivers his message
effectively through the use of ethos. It is also evident that by using real life examples/parables, to
communicate his idea to the reader, demonstrated an effective use of logos. Had Kozubek not
utilized these rhetorical strategies, his article would not nearly have been as persuasive as it
could of been for the reader because of the lack of credibility. I would not consider myself to be
part of the target audience because this is not an article that I would just pop open and read in my
own free time. However, given the circumstances that this article fell into my hands, I have been
persuaded by Kozubek and I totally agree with him. Readers who are actually apart of his target
audience may experience an even greater level of persuasion given that they most likely know
more about the subject. I would not have been persuaded had it not been for Kozubek’s effective
use of logos and ethos. He was able to make these rhetorical strategies work for him and subtly
deliver his message to the reader.

Word Count- 1190

Works Cited

Kozubek, J. (2017, December 27). Science and Morality. Retrieved

October 14, 2019, from

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/science-and-morality/.

What are genome editing and CRISPR-Cas9? - Genetics Home Reference - NIH. (n.d.).

Retrieved from

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genomicresearch/genomeediting.

Kozubek, J. (n.d.). Jim Kozubek.

Retrieved from

https://aeon.co/users/jim-kozubek​.