How would I write a satirical essay about embryonic stem cell research?
Satirical Essay about embryonic stem cell research
First, you would research the topic to learn about the subject. Then, you would decide whether you support the technology or not. Once you know which side you're on, you would look at the arguments advanced by your opponents, and ask yourself how those arguments are not only wrong, but ridiculous. Finally, you would decide on a scenario you could describe that would show your reader just how ridiculous those arguments were.
For instance, a while back here in Canada, Jean Chretien, our prime minister at the time, refused to replace our army's helicopters, even though they were falling apart and were the country's main search and rescue vehicles. A satirical television show did a skit that showed two soldiers desperately trying to keep their helicopter in the air, fixing mechanical problem after mechanical problem. A call came through telling them that a plane had run into engine trouble, and was about to crash into the Atlantic, and that they needed to change course to pick up the survivors.
"We're on our way," the pilot replied.
"Hurry," said the dispatcher. "This wasn't just any plane -- it was the prime minister's plane -- he was caught in a storm on his way back from Europe. We have him on the radio now, and he says they'll only be able to maintain altitude for another five minutes at most."
"The Prime Minister's plane?" replied the pilot. "And you have him on the radio? Oh. In that case, tell him we won't be able to make it."
"You won't be able to make it? Why not?"
"Tell him we're flying unabled"
"Flying unabled? I don't understand," the dispatcher said, confused.
"Just tell him we said F. U., He'll know what we mean."
The clip works by pointing out how ridiculous it is for a man to refuse to properly fund people that he personally might need to save him some day, while also capturing the resentment of the military in a humorous way. If you want to read some satirical essays written by other people, try the articles listed here cbc.ca/national/rex/ or else find a copy of "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift. This should give you a sense of the general techniques used by satirists.
For instance, a while back here in Canada, Jean Chretien, our prime minister at the time, refused to replace our army's helicopters, even though they were falling apart and were the country's main search and rescue vehicles. A satirical television show did a skit that showed two soldiers desperately trying to keep their helicopter in the air, fixing mechanical problem after mechanical problem. A call came through telling them that a plane had run into engine trouble, and was about to crash into the Atlantic, and that they needed to change course to pick up the survivors.
"We're on our way," the pilot replied.
"Hurry," said the dispatcher. "This wasn't just any plane -- it was the prime minister's plane -- he was caught in a storm on his way back from Europe. We have him on the radio now, and he says they'll only be able to maintain altitude for another five minutes at most."
"The Prime Minister's plane?" replied the pilot. "And you have him on the radio? Oh. In that case, tell him we won't be able to make it."
"You won't be able to make it? Why not?"
"Tell him we're flying unabled"
"Flying unabled? I don't understand," the dispatcher said, confused.
"Just tell him we said F. U., He'll know what we mean."
The clip works by pointing out how ridiculous it is for a man to refuse to properly fund people that he personally might need to save him some day, while also capturing the resentment of the military in a humorous way. If you want to read some satirical essays written by other people, try the articles listed here cbc.ca/national/rex/ or else find a copy of "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift. This should give you a sense of the general techniques used by satirists.
might you could go to bookstore to find the relative artical
you could get more information
you could get more information
I wish George W. Bush would end up paralyzed and in a wheelchair for vetoing Stem Cell Research. I can say that because I am paralyzed and in a wheelchair. I would love to see it.
Wow, that is a cool example, Sean! I think of satirical essays as a step up from persuasive essay. Look online at descriptions for persuasive essays -- main arguments, supporting evidence, refuting the counter-argument, giving the reader a reason to care -- but then add sarcasm and dry humor. You can have a great time with this, regardless of which way you argue. It is easy to make fun of both sides of the argument.
Anyway, you have work to do! Make a strong argument and ridicule the opposing view. Have fun, and let's see what you come up with.
Anyway, you have work to do! Make a strong argument and ridicule the opposing view. Have fun, and let's see what you come up with.
"I wish George W. Bush would end up paralyzed and in a wheelchair for vetoing Stem Cell Research" But this is not, in and of itself, an appropriate basis for satire. It is merely an expression of deep bitterness that lacks any real humor. This topic was satirized, however, by South Park, in which Christopher Reeve first recovers from paralysis, then gains superpowers, by sucking the stem cells directly from fetuses. This was excellent satire, in large part because, like much of South Park's humor, it satirizes both sides of the issue. It shows how ridiculous opposition to stem cell research is, because of course stem cells are produced in petri dishes and then injected, not sucked from fetuses ripped from the womb in the third trimester. On the other hand, for all the hype over their potential, they have not yet got anyone out of their wheelchair, much less augmented humans with superpowers, despite almost a decade of research in several first world nations (virtually all of them except America, and even America has done quite a bit using adult stem cell lines.) Thus, the South Park episode shows how ridiculous the issue itself is, being driven as it is by massive exaggeration of what stem cell research entails by both sides.
