1

WPA Outcome Proposal Reflection

Claire Palmer

Rhetorical Knowledge
The CRISPR-Cas9 was the basis of my proposal and was sought out to the
audience of people and scientist who intended on using the CRISPR-Cas9 for
the genetic modification of their children or child. My proposal held intricate
information that steadily persuaded my audience about how and why the use
of genetic modification, using the CRISPR-Cas9, should ultimately be limited
and ruled upon. Facts pertaining to the various consequences, helped
contribute to my persuasion by fully backing me up. During this process I
was able to use the concepts of rhetorical knowledge to compose a piece
that justified my view point as well as showed that I held the ability to
analyze multiple texts and then use those texts in my own manner to
conduct a solid foundation as to why there should be restriction on the
CRISPR-Cas9. For instance, I stated in my proposal:
I am writing this letter to propose a solution to the creation of the CRISPR-Cas9,
which is a mechanism that scientists have created in order to change the RNA in
a childs genome. The approach to this mechanism is to be able to stop
genetically heritable diseases so that children can get a chance to live a normal
life when they wouldnt be able to, but it has the ability to also enhance a childs
genome by changing the way they will look, how they act, and what they
become good at. Parents who can afford it could ultimately create the perfect
human being, by not only making them disease free, but also making them
athletic, intelligent, and beautiful.

My quote held contributing facts that I researched and also held explanations
to define the perspective I was going for. As a result, I was able to
understand the main purpose of my proposal and hold up to my audiences
expectations, plus more. By, learning and using key rhetorical concepts
through analyzing and composing a variety of texts, (WPA Outcomes
Statement for First-Year Composition), I was able to compose a
straightforward proposal that help all elements to fully strain to my audience
the effects of the CRISPR-Cas9 that most scientists forget to reveal.

Critically Thinking, Reading, and Composing

My proposal held divided sections so each area was through analyzed
individually. For instance, the cost of the CRISPR-Cas9, the problem, the
solution, and the overall purpose of my proposal involving the effects of the
CRISPR-Cas9. Within these sections, I used the information that I thoroughly
researched from the multiple materials to find the underlying assumption. It
came to be that the assumption was if the CRISPR-Cas9 will have a positive
effect on society and generations to come. From the research, I found to
believe that the CRISPR-Cas9 held more negative outcomes than positive
outcomes for society. As a result, I had to identify and evaluate the chains of

2
reasoning to come up with a through explanation for each section in order to
back up my notion. By doing this, I was able to, use strategies - such as
interpretation, synthesis, response, critique, and design - to compose texts
that integrate the writers ideas with those from appropriate sources, (WPA
Outcomes First-Year Composition). For example, in my proposal I stated:
Down Syndrome, Sickle Cell Anemia Cystic Fibrosis, and Huntingtons Disease
ruin countless peoples lives, and ultimately kill most in the end. This is a
problem society has been trying to fix for a multitude of years and now, the
answer is right in front of them. However, with this mechanism, there needs to
be guidelines and restrictions to stop people of society and scientists from
creating something that could destroy us in the end. Before we perfect a human
being, we need to perfect the mechanism and understand the consequences of
the mechanism.

This example came form the section revealing the problems that the CRISPRCas9 can cause, if the mechanism were to be used for genetic modification. I
addressed my audience by the use of critical thinking by revealing what most
people believe about the CRISPR-Cas9 and how it would help society, but
then quickly concluding that even though the mechanism may help in one
area it will also cause more strenuous conflicts that society doesnt need in
other areas. I was then able to persuade my audience that the CRISPR-Cas9
would not worth the risk, until the mechanism itself doesnt have such
negative outcomes. Which showed my audience that I was capable of
separating assertion from evidence.

Processes
The processes in creating this proposal started with brainstorming. By
brainstorming I was able to figure out what I was going to confront my
audience with. When I came to find that I should convince my audience that
the mechanism, CRISPR-Cas9, was not something society should take for
granted, I then was able to split my proposal into sections that would
thoroughly back up my statement. These sections consisted of the
background, problem, solution, cost, and conclusion. Each individual section
took research time to conceive clean evidence to overall make an effective
proposal. After drafting then peer reviewing by an outside source, the
proposal over the CRISPR-Cas9 and its abilities were finalized. From this I was
able to, develop flexible strategies for reading, drafting, reviewing,
collaborating, revising, rewriting, rereading, and editing, (WPA Outcomes
First-Year Composition). For evidence, I stated in my proposal:
Solution to the Problem
I propose that the CRISPR-Cas9 should be completely ineffective, since we dont
know of the outcomes it could create for human beings since there hasnt been a
child that has had their RNA effectively changed and grown up into. Though
since the Government has given scientists the ability to use CRISPR-Cas9 on

3
animals for experimentation, then there needs to be set limitations and
restrictions for the usage of this mechanism on children when it is fully cleared
by the FDA. With that being said, parents of their children should not have the
decision to enhance their childs genome at all, but they should have the ability
to fix the hereditary disease that the child would be born with. This will stop
humans from creating the perfect human being and realize that children are
humans not pieces of art to show off.

From this you can see that my proposal held labeled sections that backed up
my viewpoint of putting a restriction on the use of the CRISPR-Cas9. It also
successfully shows a finalized project, with correct grammar, punctuation,
and spelling. During these steps I not only was able to adjust my paper, but
also adapt to the different elements and take the advice given to me
throughout the making of the proposal. I was able to use surface-level
editing and work-in-process reviewing to establish developing ideas in order
to get my point across to my audience seldom linear, while employing
methods and technologies to find information to support my persuasion and
my examples.

Knowledge of Conventions
In order to create a valid proposal, I had to met intellectual requirements. In
means of that, I had to understand, analyze, and negotiate conventions for
purpose, audience, and genre. While in the process of composing I also had
to accept that genres do evolve in response to changes in material
conditions. With that being said, during the creation of my proposal, the idea
behind genetic modification using the CRISPR-Cas9, I made sure that the
factors that could influence my work were set to a minimum. This was done
by the design of the overall proposal. By having sections that intricately
individualized key ideas to win over my audience, I was able to thoroughly
explain the concept of how that idea would effect society in an ethical, social,
and moral way. My proposal also helped me, explore the concepts of intellectual
property (such as fair use and copyright) that motivate documentation conventions that held
fair use of copyright, (WPA Outcomes First-Year Composition). So, I was not
exactly quoting scientists word for word, but used their facts to orchestrate
solid evidence. For instance, in my proposal I stated:
Morals and ethics also play a huge role in the genetic modification of humans
through CRISPR-Cas9. Scientists do not take into account that if a child is
sculpted like a piece of art work by its parents, then do they truly believe they
are who they should be? It is not only the physical traits that could end up
hurting us genetically, but it can also effect peoples mental state. Children could
end up not looking anything like their parents because their parents could create
them based off of dreams of their own. This could go entirely against what that
child wants for the future and can effect them for years to come as the genomes
of these children would be changed before they even become a person. So in the
end they dont ever get to be who they truly are, but instead they live under the
constant expectations of their parents dreams and ideas. Which could result in
mental disorders, and societal controversies

My quote holds facts that were not just said by one scientist but by multiple
scientists, and with using these facts I also was able incorporated my ethical
implications of the situation in order to make it my own, so I would not have
to full cite the piece. From this I was able to not only learn how to make the
piece my own, but to also distribute words that logically showed my
audience that I knew what I was talking about. By doing this, I am showing
them not only persuasion through my words but also my writing actions. This
made my proposal that much more creditable and a realistically concerning
topic for my audience to think about.