Canine Genetic Health

Rhetorical Analysis of Scholarly and Popular Source: Canine Genetic Health Over the past few years, the genetic health of purebred dogs has plummeted severely. The aim for these animals to look perfect in the eyes of humans and live up to an unrealistic standard has caused a negative effect on their overall health and quality of life. Diseases such as hip dysplasia, epilepsy, and cataracts are just a few of the many examples of the new reality of purebred dogs. Irresponsible breeding and the lack of knowledge of professionals are two of the main reasons for this terrible tragedy. Two articles, “A terrible beauty,” written by Michael D. Lemonick and Ann Blackman and “International and collaborative strategies to enhance genetic health in purebred dogs,” written by Ake A. Hedhammar, Sofia Malm, and Brenda Bonnett, discuss these concerns and indicate potential solutions as well. The authors of both of these articles have similarities and differences on their purpose for writing, the language utilized, and their intended audience. Although these two pieces of writing both discuss the genetic difficulties that purebred dogs are facing, the purpose in which the articles are written have a few differences. Ake A Hedhammar, Sofia Malm, and Brenda Bonnett, members of the Department of Clinical Sciences at Swedish University, strive to inform the audience about the genetic problems in purebred dogs, the strategies needed to study these issues, and how to stimulate further discussion for this cause. They say, “this paper aims to (1) define briefly some of the key issues and challenges; (2) describe existing sources of information and tools for genetic evaluation; (3) outline the basis for actions; and (4) suggest specific collaborative strategies to address recognition of new breeds, reduction of exaggerated anatomical features, selection of breeding stock and handling of recognized or emerging diseases of suspected genetic origin” (189). By directly stating what their paper aims to do, Hedhammar, Malm, and Bonnett are able to give the readers an insight on what they are expected to learn from this piece in hopes to promote change. The statement is composed in a clear, declarative manner in order to successfully make the purpose known for the audience. In “A Terrible Beauty,” authors Michael D. Lemonick and Ann Blackman hope to inform the reader on number of purebred dogs in the united states that face genetic problems, the severity of these disorders, and how the livelihood of this species can be improved. They reveal their purpose for writing by simply proposing a question: “What can we do to improve overall canine health?” (64). Lemonick and Blackman introduce their article with a question for the reader. This strategy chosen automatically forces the reader to begin thinking about the subject matter and simultaneously promote understanding of the authors’ purpose. The purpose in which the two articles are written have slight differences, but the language and tone utilized in each piece are rather opposite from one another. The language chosen by Hedhammar, Malm, and Bonnett in their article “International and collaborative strategies to enhance genetic health in purebred dogs” is direct, scientific, and professional. For example, Hedhammar, Malm, and Bonnett first display this scientific language in their introduction, and subsequently throughout their article. They begin my declaring, “Artificial selection for specific characteristics and behaviors has led to both diversity between and reduced genetic variation within breeds” (189). Using proper and technical words like “artificial selection,” and “reduced genetic variation” proves that this piece of writing is intended to be scientific and appropriate for an academic journal. The word choice is extremely specific for the subject matter and the authors do not explain or go into further depth of the terms used in this sentence. Because of this, the reader is expected to understand what these words and phrases mean in order to fully grasp the writing. On the contrary, Lemonick and Blackman demonstrate a casual, laid back, and relaxed tone. Easy going language is displayed throughout their entire essay, but especially demonstrated when they say, “The list goes on and on, running to more than 300 separate genetic disorders that subject dogs to enormous pain” (64). The phrase “the list goes on and on” is extremely nonchalant and comfortable, and it would be expected in casual conversation between two people. This style of language allows for an easy-going read and will ultimately prevent the audience from losing focus on the topic at hand. The approach used by Lemonick and Blackman in their article is efficient for their intended audience. Due to the vast distinction in the language chosen for each article, the intended audience ranges from the general public to scholars or students in the veterinary field. The Veterinary Journal published “International and collaborative strategies to enhance genetic health in purebred dogs” for readers who are professionals in the veterinary field or people studying in it. More specifically, this article is aimed toward those who are either responsible for the mass genetic defects of dogs or specialists accountable to resolve this tragedy. Hedhammar, Malm, and Bonnett directly express their concerns to professionals in this field by saying, “All stakeholders must be willing to accept some responsibility for the problems that exist and to be willing to look for ways to improve the health and well-being of purebred dogs through leadership and cooperation” (190). The authors are straightforward when they announce that experts must take accountability for this world wide epidemic. This quote also illustrates a call for help to the audience when stressing the need to strive for the improvement of canine health and well-being. Oppositely, TIMES magazine, the source in which “A Terrible Beauty” was posted, is for the general public to read. However, this piece is specifically aimed more toward dog owners and breeders in the United States or people that also see canine genetic health as a major issue. Lemonick and Blackman make it clear who their intended audience is with this eye-opening statistic: “The appalling truth is that as many as 25% of the 20 million purebred dogs in America -- 1 in 4 animals -- are afflicted with a serious genetic problem” (64). This quote is so powerful for the audience because of the fact that dog owners make up a vast majority of population in the United States. According to a 2017-2018 American Pet Products Association survey, 60.2 million (48.5%) of households own at least one dog (“Pets by the Numbers). Lemonick and Blackman realize that the majority of people can relate to their topic, so they are trying to grasp the audience’s attention by discussing the glaring reality of canine health. Although the two reports, “International and collaborative strategies to enhance genetic health in purebred dogs,” written by Ake A. Hedhammar, Sofia Malm, and Brenda Bonnett, and “A terrible beauty,” written by Michael D. Lemonick and Ann Blackman similarly discuss the major issues regarding purebred canine health, the two articles possess quite a few variances in the rhetorical choices chosen by the authors in each. The fact that the two articles, a scholarly source and a popular source, are opposite forms of writing explains the need for the differences in the language utilized, the intended audience for the articles, and the purpose in which the essays are written. Nonetheless, the essays push toward a certain goal of raising awareness for canine health in their own way and can be applied to further the discussion of this widespread issue.