Genome Editing Memo

In this memo, I will be analyzing two websites that cover the same material, but approach their audiences very differently. I will discuss the variations between these two sites that I found while reviewing and comparing the two. The topic that I will be reviewing is genome editing and how the process works. I will contrast this subject by using the following websites: Nuffield Council on Bioethics (www.nuffieldbioethics.org) and National Human Genome Research Institute (www.genome.gov).

Almost immediately after reading the article from National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), it was very clear that the author intended to write this article to a more technical and mature audience. This article immediately jumps into scientific terminology

With lengthy sentence structures and paragraphs, it can be determined that the intended audience must have previous knowledge on the basics of the biological process. Moreover, without further explanation on terms that were used, I would safely assume that the primary audience would consist of college level students and older with previous training in biology. The intended primary audience can go as far as scientific researchers or department developers. As for the secondary audience, it can entail people who might use this article as a

The websites both identify genome editing as a positive resource to edit multiple sites in a cell. However, there has been a large outburst of negativity surrounding this procedure within the past few years. Instead of addressing the ethnical issues that the public has with the genome editing technique, both articles choose to not incorporate the negative feedback that this procedure has been receiving. In its place, both articles use logos to address all the positives that genome editing has to offer. For example, in the last paragraph in the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the author writes, “Given that genome editing has the potential to alter any DNA sequence…it has an almost limitless range of possible applications in living things” (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2016). Instead of furthering the thought, the author goes on to list the positive applications that can occur when genome editing is in