When preparing for an interview, the same advice is offered time and time again: dress well, know your facts, and be confident.  These pieces of advice are timeless because they have been proven to work; people who seem professional and seem like they really know what they are talking about tend to be more convincing than those who seem timid and unsure.  Persuasive writers are virtually doing the exact same thing in that when trying to win over their readers, establishing a sense of credibility is crucial.  Aristotle uses the word ethos to describe this method of establishing credibility to increase persuasive ability.  In the article, "Has gene editing gone too far? Ethical boundaries debated at historic summit," author Molly Jackson discusses the current debate and popular attitude regarding human genetic engineering.  From screening an embryo in hopes of eliminating hereditary diseases to altering an individual's genes and physical characteristics, one thing remains clear: opening the door to genetic modification will change the world forever.  Through the reference of distinguished authority figures and the use of scientific language and research, Jackson uses the technique of ethos to effectively convince the reader of the current opinions and potential concerns of human genetic engineering.

According to the Carolina Rhetoric, "a speaker or writer can enhance his or her own credibility by incorporating references to quotes or the actions of authorities or leaders" (109).  Right from the beginning, Molly Jackson establishes her validity by mentioning the international summit debate for which scientists from around the world are coming to discuss the issue of genetic modification.  By speaking of scientists from around the world, Jackson gives the reader the notion that the information in this article is going to be legitimate and reliable.  Soon after, Jackson quotes Nobel laureate David Baltimore, of the California Institute of Technology who says, "'We sense that we are close to being able to alter human heredity ... This is something to which all people should pay attention.'"  By incorporating the voice of someone who has won one of the most prestigious honors for advancements made in science, Jackson both builds her credibility, as well as the legitimacy of the international summit conference being held.  After claiming that there is little support for genetic engineering at the moment, Jackson calls upon the leaders of the United States for support, saying, "The White House, for instance, has cautioned that "altering the human germline for clinical purposes is a line that should not be crossed at this time," a stance reiterated at the DC summit by the White House senior science advisor John Holdren" (Jackson). By alluding to these authority figures, Jackson constructs a sense of reliablility that gains her audience's respect and support.

Another way of establishing this credibility is for the author to use scientific language and fact to prove that she does, indeed, know what she is talking about.  Molly Jackson first displays this technique by explaining the different methods of gene editing.  She focuses on the CRISPR-Cas9, the method used by the Chinese team, whose "embryo experiments were the first to involve genes that could potentially be passed on to the next generation" (Jackson).  She then goes on to explain that this method is still somewhat inaccurate and, thus, extremely unsafe.  By discussing one of the main methods of genetic modification, Jackson builds support for her claims.  In another instance Jackson acknowledges the possible benefits of gene editing, which is the "opportunity to prevent disease in gene editing technology - a tool to stop what have been deemed inheritable diseases by editing parents' genes, which would then be passed on to future children." By acknowledging the scientific advantages of genetic modification, Jackson communicates to the reader that she knows there are some benefits regarding the matter, but she remains firm in her concerns as well.  Lastly, Jackson uses scientific statistics to build her credibility.  She explains that eighty-three percent of Americans are opposed to the modification of a baby's genes to improve his or her intelligence, and fifty percent are even opposed to editing genes in order to prevent hereditary diseases (Jackson).  By incorporating both scientific language and scientific statistical fact, Jackson becomes a more intelligent, reliable author in the eyes of the reader.

According to Aristotle, no rhetorical argument is complete without the presence of all three elements: ethos, pathos and logos.  So while this essay focuses most on ethos, the use of pathos and logos must be considered.  According to the Carolina Rhetoric and Aristotle's teachings, "pathos refers to emotion used to sway the audience, and finally, logos refers to the writers purpose (or subject) for an effective argument will include evidence and other supporting details to back up the author's claims (93).  In the article, pathos can be found when Jackson explains that the results of genetic engineering are highly unpredictable and, moreover, that no matter what the results, they could affect multiple generations to come.  By referring to the next generations, Jackson leads the reader to consider what the future would look like for his or her children or grandchildren.  This tie to family causes the reader to worry, and it most likely also causes the reader to become a bit more skeptical of genetic engineering as a whole.  Logos can be seen throughout the article in Jackson's structure and explanations of what gene editing is and why it is worrying so many people.  She begins her article about human genetic modification by discussing its current relevancy, since just recently scientists from around the world came together to discuss gene editing's advantages and disadvantages for the first time.  Aristotle would refer to this as kairos, waiting for the opportune moment to bring up an argument.  She continues her use of logos by first explaining what exactly gene editing is, and then going on to explain why, and which, people are concerned.  She finishes by referencing statistical findings that show the percentage of Americans who oppose genetic engineering in order to support her previous claims.  She might have strengthened the argument by using logos to discuss how gene editing could severely widen the gap between social classes.  Overall, though, Jackson's focus on ethos is most effective, as she is able to be much more persuasive once her audience knows that she and her information are reliable.   

Molly Jackson establishes a sense of credibility several times throughout her article on human genetic engineering.  Through the use of ethos, Jackson becomes more reliable, respectable, and persuasive.  First, she references many authority figures, which leads the reader to trust that the contents of the article are legitimate.  Most notably, she references the international summit debate, Nobel Prize winner, David Baltimore, and the White House.  She also uses scientific language and fact to establish validity.  She includes an explanation of different gene editing methods and statistics on the public's current attitude toward the issue.  Lastly, Jackson includes elements of pathos to play on emotion, logos to set up a clear structure for the article, and even kairos to display the relevancy of the issue.  Through the use of Aristotle's three most important rhetorical writing components, Molly Jackson creates a persuasive and informative article on the concerns of human genetic engineering.    

