Immunology and Nutrition Science on Artificial Sweeteners

Various Splenda packets; a common artificial sweetener.

Jennifer struggled with weight loss. Her weight stayed the same for months, regardless of what she did. Nothing got better until she joined a new program and learned new things about weight loss (“My Weight Loss Story”). Many struggling with weight loss face this issue; they follow inefficient advice, or get buried in misinformation. One trending topic in the weight loss scene is the use of artificial sweeteners, which has received its fair share of gossip. As a result, different academic disciplines attempt to resolve these issues. The article “Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota,” by Suez et al., shows the viewpoint of immunologists on artificial sweeteners, while the article, “The effects of aspartame as part of a multi-disciplinary weight-control program on short- and long-term control on body weight,” by Blackburn et al., shows a viewpoint from nutrition scientists. Some prefer sources that provide in-depth details on the processes, while others prefer sources that clearly show the information’s relevance. But, a combination provides a solid picture of the topic by both actively connecting the information with the reader's life, and by explaining why these results are that way. Only exposing one's self to one approach limits one's ability to effectively reach one’s goals, due to an incomplete understanding. Even though the two aforementioned disciplines present similar research, Suez et al. employ in-depth explanations on processes, specific scientific language, occasional use of first-person, and abundant data tables to appeal to readers who prefer detailed explanations. Conversely, Blackburn et al. present simple language, a third-person point of view, and relatable experiment information to present data that immediately shows its real-life applications. For an adequately reinforced approach to artificial sweeteners and weight loss, people must acknowledge these approaches' differences and not just expose themselves to one perspective.

Representation of artificial sweeteners and sugar.

Even though their approaches are different, both articles establish solid credibility for their positions by using concrete and descriptive language. This gives the reader a reason to trust what the authors are actually discussing, and shows that the articles' approaches can relate with each other. When Suez et al. discusses the main reason for why consuming artificial sweeteners could lead to health risks (like a lower tolerance for glucose) with the line, “Both Gram-positive and Gram-negative taxa contributed to the NAS-induced phenotype and were enriched for glycan degradation pathways, previously linked to enhanced energy harvest” (Suez), the authors on the immunology side build their credibility through a specific use of terminology that can easily be reviewed. Even though it may be difficult for the average reader to understand, he or she can look up the definition of the terms and derive the discussion’s meaning. Suez et al. continue to reinforce this claim by explaining how the study, “suggests that elaborate inter-species microbial cooperation may functionally orchestrate the gut ecosystem and contribute to vital community activities in diverging environmental conditions” (Suez) by choosing to elaborate on what their previous claim implied. Even if the reader does not understand what Suez et al. discusses, due to the heavy scientific terminology use, further explanation and implication analysis inspire confidence in the reader. These claims can easily be reviewed because of their descriptive and straight-forward language. Blackburn et al. follows this trend by using very concrete and descriptive language. Blackburn et al. successfully review the results of their experiment, and discuss the implications of their results in great detail. Overall, Blackburn et al. construct these sections in a very logical and descriptive manner. This reinforces the reader’s trust in the authors by showing that they understand their experiment and the implications of their results. By approaching a popular topic riddled with misinformation in an attempt to dispel these misconceptions, authors of both academic disciplines must distinguish themselves and establish a credible and logical foundation. Authors of both sides succeed in doing this by promoting confidence in the reader through descriptive and straight-forward word choices.

However, this major rhetorical similarity ends there, as both articles differ in their language choices. This difference ultimately decides the audiences that each article will appeal to. As mentioned, Suez et al. employ a heavy use of scientific terminology. Suez et al. explains that, “to determine the effects of NAS on glucose homeostasis, we added commercial formulations of saccharin, sucralose or aspartame to the drinking water of lean 10-week-old C57Bl/6 mice” (Suez). For readers outside of a biology field, they will have a very difficult time understanding this sentence because of the scientific terminology. Suez et al. clearly aimed this article at others in a biology field. Though, this article’s approach doesn’t only appeal to scientists. It appeals to anyone hoping to know why a process works the way it does, and to reinforce his or her knowledge about the topic so he or she could possibly distinguish accurate information from misinformation. Using several scientific terms ensures accuracy and makes discussion about the topic much easier. However, not everyone prefers this approach, and not everyone likes researching scientific terms. Attempting to comprehend this article and relating it with real life may also lead to frustration. Blackburn et al. cater to this issue with a simpler approach.

While Suez et al. use difficult terminology, Blackburn et al. attempt to establish an immediate connection with the reader by using accessible language. The nutrition science article strives to relate with the audience as much as possible, so this idea of establishing a connection fits the article very well. Blackburn et al. explain that, “the more interesting result of this study, however, relate to the effect of aspartame on long-term control of body weight” (Blackburn 415). They give a very concise analysis of their data with straight-forward language. The only instance of potentially complicated terminology is “aspartame,” which Blackburn et al. explain early in the article that it’s basically artificial sweeteners. Blackburn et al. relate their findings with the reader as much as possible, and make the information immediately relevant for the reader by sparing the technical details. They explain that, “the results of this study … suggest that aspartame may facilitate the control of body weight” (Blackburn 415). However, this lack of terminology costs the reader a deeper look into the reasons behind the article’s findings. If one exposes oneself to only this side, one might spawn misconceptions from drawing incorrect or premature relations, like using artificial sweeteners will always lead to weight loss, for example. This shows a need for a balance of both sides if the reader wishes to effectively integrate information from these articles into his/her life.

Comparison of artificial sweeteners and sugar.

Another rhetorical difference between the articles’ styles is their points of view. Suez et al. occasionally use first-person, which helps present the information in a relatable way for the reader. For example, Suez et al. explain that, “we identify NAS-altered microbial metabolic pathways that are linked to host susceptibility to metabolic disease, and demonstrate similar NAS-induced dysbiosis and glucose intolerance in healthy human subjects” (Suez). The authors use first-person when transitioning, introducing major sections of the article, and when discussing their results, which helps the reader relate with the article, despite the scientific jargon. This is important because if Suez et al. wish to appeal to those interested in their detailed approach with the article, and not just scientists, Suez et al. must have points where they can connect what they’re talking about with the world around them. Blackburn et al. don’t need to do this, as their approach and language already resonate with the reader. Instead, Blackburn et al. choose to use only third-person. By doing so, they establish a sense of objectivity. This is very important because of how relatable their article is with the reader, and how little explanation they provide for the processes behind their results. They also maintain credibility by avoiding first-person, because their article thoroughly covers the real-world implications of their findings. Using first-person in this context implies possible bias, or even confuses their findings with personal interpretations.

In addition to their language, the authors of both articles use the organization rhetorical device to illustrate their point. Suez et al. follow the standard scientific report format with an abstract, introduction, methods section, results section, and discussion section. They add, though, several sections of data analysis outside of the discussion section, and provide many data tables. Combined with the specific terminology and consistent elaboration, this organizational approach ensures that the reader can conveniently see the details of their findings, staying true to this article’s thorough explanation style. Suez et al. also reference several secondary sources throughout the introduction, discussion, and data analysis sections. This adequately provides essential information and reinforces their credibility. Consequently, the authors leave little room for real-world implications or commentary, even in the discussion section, despite their employment of a first-person point of view.
The only sentence where Suez et al. relates possible implications for the future with their results is where they explain how, “Similarly, we believe that other individualized nutritional responses may be driven by personalized functional differences in the microbiome” (Suez). Despite the thorough explanations and data tables, the reader might have trouble finding the article’s content relevant. The reader needs the accessible language and clear real-world connections that Blackburn et al. provide to fully utilize the information.

Blackburn et al. employ the same scientific report structure that Suez et al. used, but Blackburn et al. place heavy emphasis on the introduction and discussion sections. This firmly relates the study with real life. Blackburn et al. also regularly reference secondary sources, but unlike the other article, this article makes references throughout all sections. These secondary sources reinforce the authors’ credibility while staying relevant to their approach of relating information. An example of this is where Blackburn et al. mention how, “currently, 33% of all adults in the United States aged greater than or equal to twenty years are overweight” (Blackburn 409). They consistently relate their information with the reader and the reader’s life, but do not explain details for the processes behind the results. Seeing this perspective with a lack of technical understanding could lead to misunderstandings and a very frustrating time losing weight, which is why familiarizing one’s self with both approaches is crucial for success.

Although “Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota,” by Suez et al., and “The effect of aspartame as part of a multidisciplinary weight-control program on short – and long – term control of body weight,” by Blackburn et al. address the same topic, both articles present information from different disciplines, which are immunology and nutrition science. Suez et al. use in-depth explanations, complicated scientific terminology, first-person, and strategic organization to provide a thorough explanation on the processes behind their experiment, and to appeal to those who value in-depth explanations. Conversely, Blackburn et al. use simple language, an objective third-person, frequent references to real-life implications, and a unique organization to present another view. This approach appeals to those looking for a simpler article that clearly relates the information with their lives. To effectively address issues, people must familiarize themselves with both approaches. Only focusing on one of these perspectives leads to an underdeveloped view. In an age where information is so abundant, successfully identifying these different viewpoints is more important than ever if we want to prevent potential misinformation, especially since so many struggle with weight loss. These two academic disciplines approach artificial sweeteners and weight loss in unique ways, so we can address our issues more efficiently.



Works Cited

"My Weight Loss Story." Peanut Butter and Peppers. 19 Sept. 2011. Web. 25 Apr. 2015. <http://www.peanutbutterandpeppers.com/my-weight-loss-story/>.

Suez, Jotham, Tal Korem, David Zeevi, Gili Zilberman-Schapira, Christopher Thaiss, Ori Maza, David Israeli, Niv Zmora, Shlomit Gilad, Aldina Weinburger, Yael Kuperman, Alon Harmelin, Llana Kolodkin-Ga, Hagit Shapiro, Eran Segal, and Eran Elinav. "Artificial Sweeteners Induce Glucose Intolerance by Altering the Gut Microbiota." Nature 514.7521 (2014): 181-86. Web. 25 Apr. 2015. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature13793.html#chronic-nas-consumption-exacerbates-glucose-intolerance>.

Blackburn, George, Beatrice Kanders, Philip Lavin, Susan Keller, and Janet Whatley. "The Effects of Aspartame as Part of a Multidisciplinary Weight-control Program on a Short-and Long-term Control of Body Weight." Web. 27 Apr. 2015. <http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/2/409.full.pdf>.



http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2012/01/12/why-your-grandma-steals-sugar-packets/
http://www.deardoctor.com/articles/artificial-sweeteners/page3.php
http://www.atms.com.au/artificial-sweeteners-implicated-in-glucose-intolerance/#.VT4qhJMYG20

Understanding Economists and Sociologists Through Rhetorical Analysis

A map of the current minimum wage rates in the U.S. as of 2012.

Caroline Styne is a restaurant owner in Los Angeles. When asked about the $15 minimum wage recently proposed by the city council, she said, "There is just no room for us to be able to afford this increase and stay in business” (Elliott). Most people believe minimum wages should be increased, while many economists argue through economic models that increasing the minimum wage can actually have negative effects on the economy. In the article “Can minimum wages cause a big push? Evidence from Indonesia” by Jeremy R. Magruder, he argues that minimum wage correlates to a big push and higher wage equilibrium. Daniel J. Fairchild, on the other hand, argues that the minimum wage does not help the poor through his article “Does the Minimum Wage Help the Poor?” These two authors come from different academic backgrounds, Magruder being an economist and Fairchild being a sociologist. Since these two authors differ when it comes to academic discipline, they use different rhetorical strategies to approach their topic of minimum wage. Magruder relies on literal language, first person point of view, and mathematical jargon while Fairchild incorporates conversational language along with more familiar diction and a broader focus that emphasizes the social implications of his argument. Recognizing and understanding why Magruder and Fairchild employ these different rhetorical strategies allows us to gain a better understanding of the mindset and thought process of an economist and a sociologist, as economists are more narrowly focused, deep, and mathematical, while sociologists use more breadth to present their information, implying conversation instead of the use of mathematical proofs and models.

Economists are used to constructing and analyzing economic models that are made to simulate the real world, and these models often focus on a particular issue within a large economy. The construction of economic models requires gathering data on previous economic trends, while the analysis of these models requires tables, graphs, and mathematics. Although the field of sociology uses data and research to support claims being made, there are also many factors within society that must be accounted for. This causes sociologists to incorporate more breadth in their analysis in comparison to economists’ deep and narrow analysis. Sociologists tend to invite conversation, sparking interest and debate from their audience through their wide analysis, while economists stand on one point in an attempt to show others how their analysis proves traditional economic teaching and theory. Both Magruder and Fairchild stick to the traditional mindset of an economist and sociologist, and doing so allows us to spot their rhetoric differences.

The first thing to note when comparing the rhetorical differences between Magruder and Fairchild are the organizational strategies used by both authors. Since Magruder is following the conventions of a typical economic analysis, his organization is very deep and specific. He has a total of nine topics in his article, and some of these topics also have their own subtopics. If we look at page 54 of his article, we can see that topic 6, Results, has the subtopics Employment Trends, Income and Expenditures, Industry Heterogeneity, Manufacturing, Services, and Retail. He cites references in spurts at the beginning of each section, but then moves away from these sources once he gets into his analysis. Fairchild, on the other hand, does not have as many topics as Magruder. He only has a total of four topics in comparison to Magruder’s nine. Fairchild also has no subtopics, so if you take these into account as well, Magruder really has 23 topics! Fairchild also cites sources of information a lot more evenly throughout his article than Magruder, as you can see about 3 superscripts per page when reading Fairchild’s article. Magruder’s deep organization style correlates to the deep analysis he performs throughout the article. Magruder cites his sources in spurts and then detracts from them so he can get deep into his analysis, using ethical appeals that are based off of his knowledge and manipulation of a mathematically based economic model. His use of subtopics helps drive home the specific points being made throughout the analysis, and his use of ethical appeals makes his audience believe that his conclusions being made are absolutely true. Fairchild’s mindset of a traditional sociologist can be seen on page 36, where he introduces the third section of his article. His third section, A summary of Recent Empirical Research, is his longest section, which is just under three pages long. The lack of topic headers from Fairchild allows for more breadth within each part of the article, as each section in Fairchild’s article is longer than each section of Magruder’s article. Fairchild’s evenly distributed source citation shows how Fairchild has a significant amount of knowledge about the work of other scholars, allowing him to relate his arguments to other scholar’s arguments.

Magruder uses mathematical equations in his analysis in order to support the economic model and data from 1990s Indonesia, causing him to use mathematical jargon. One example of this is in his section titled Empirical Strategy, where he writes, “Since E[νi′t|i′∈R(i), Xit, minwage]=E[νit|Xit, minwage], the endogenous component of the error term disappears in expectation and so if we make an assumption of strict exogeneity similar to those used elsewhere in fixed effects analyses (E[εi′t|minwagei′′t, Xi′′t]=0 ∀i′, i′′∈R(i)), then Eq. (11) will consistently estimate the effects of minimum wage law.” Magruder does this because he wants to show that the economic model he constructed is credible, and the use of mathematical equations is a common technique used in economic analysis. It would not be appropriate for Magruder to simplify his mathematical proofs in this article because that would detract from the conventional economic analysis he exemplifies here. Magruder’s use of mathematics also aids him in his goal to show how minimum wage affects the wage equilibrium of an economy. Since Magruder is trying to imply an economic effect in this article, the uses of mathematical equations that support an economic model seem logical.

A supply and demand curve relating to minimum wage that's used by economists. 

Fairchild uses familiar diction throughout his article and stays away from mathematical jargon. One example of this can be seen at the end of page 35, where Fairchild states, “Conventional economists refer to this type of market, where there is one buyer possessing a significant amount of market power, as a monopsony.” Here, we can see that even when Fairchild incorporates what may be unfamiliar terms from different academic disciplines, he defines them for his audience. Once he defines a monopsony, he does not go any further. He does not show graphs or data, nor does he use mathematical jargon to help his audience gain a deeper understanding of the term. Knowing that Magruder refers to mathematical equations in order to aid his attempt to make an economically significant finding, similar reasoning can be applied to Fairchild’s use of familiar diction. Since Fairchild is attempting to make a significant sociological finding, he must present his research and analysis in a way that appeals to his fellow sociologists, who value his analysis of the social implications of the minimum wage over the math that he uses to verify those implications.

Magruder’s use of literal language strengthens the credibility of the analysis performed and makes his analysis on Indonesia using an economic model more effective. There’s never a time in which Magruder uses figurative language, and this fits the conventional writing style associated with economic analysis. One instance of the literal language Magruder uses is in the section titled Minimum Wages in Indonesia, where he writes, “Real minimum wages (averaged across the country) are presented in Fig. 1; this graph makes clear that minimum wages doubled in real terms between 1990 and 1997 before falling as prices rose alongside the financial crisis.” We can see here that Magruder is very direct with his analysis, which is another reason why he does not use figurative language. The literal language used throughout this article by Magruder not only makes his analysis more efficient and effective, but also implies that his conclusions being made about minimum wage are not to be taken lightly. The literal language used by Magruder limits the chance for conversation, which is appropriate since the general public does not have enough knowledge about economic models and analysis in order to question Magruder’s findings through intellectual conversation.

While Magruder uses literal language to help emphasize his specific, deep, and narrow analysis, Fairchild uses conversational language and a broad approach when performing his analysis. Since Fairchild is a sociologist and investigates how minimum wages affect a particular group of society, conversational language allows for him to relate with different groups of people that make up society. One example of both the conversational language and broader focus that Fairchild displays is through a series of quotes found on page 35, where he begins with, “If the wage elasticity coefficient is negative, the minimum wage, or an increase in it, causes a decrease in the number of workers employed.” Here we can see how he backs up his claim that increasing the minimum wage decreases employment by using economics. He then combats this statement in the next two paragraphs, beginning with “Not everyone, however, has subscribed to the notion that the minimum wage decreases employment” in one paragraph, and “More recently, some have argued that the minimum wage might actually increase employment” in the other. He later on questions the economic theory he originally used by stating, “There is yet another school of thought that rejects the notion that the labor market for less-skilled workers is highly competitive -- arguing employers do not always face stiff competition in recruiting and hiring workers.” The broader focus Fairchild creates by introducing and backing up different claims using information and theory from different academic disciplines shows how Fairchild takes a more sociological approach when discussing the issue of minimum wage. Since society is made up of a wide variety of people, the range of Fairchild’s topics and claims coincides with the diversity seen throughout society.

Although the literal language being used by Magruder implies a tone of importance and urgency, he contrasts this tone throughout the article by writing in first person point of view. Magruder uses first person point of view when either introducing a topic or transitioning to the next phase of his analysis, meaning that although first person is being used in his article, it is scattered throughout. An example of first person being used by Magruder is when he says, “Here, I construct wage histograms to verify both that the minimum wage did distort the wage distribution, and that this minimum wage was sufficiently high to evoke credible demand responses” in the section titled Minimum Wages in Indonesia. Magruder’s use of first person point of view creates authority in his analysis and also makes the process he uses more clear to his audience. Magruder uses first person point of view in his article because he values the depth of his analysis, and the clarity that comes from his usage of first person point of view portrays an analysis that is methodical and well laid out.

Fairchild uses first person point of view as well. Interestingly enough, Fairchild’s usage of first person point of view is extremely similar, if not exact, to the usage of Magruder’s. The only time Fairchild uses first person point of view is in his introduction. After the introduction, Fairchild migrates to third person point of view and sticks with it for the rest of his article. Fairchild’s decision to move from first person point of view to third person point of view reminds us that although Fairchild is a sociologist and is using conversational language, he is conducting an analysis on the effects of minimum wage, just like Magruder.

Magruder’s deep organization style, ethical appeals, mathematical jargon, and literal language are all rhetorical strategies he uses that help us understand the mindset of an economist. His deep analysis on minimum wage data from 1990s Indonesia allows us to see how economists are narrowly focused in their analysis and also shows how much economists depend on economic models and theory. Fairchild’s broad organization style, familiar diction, conversational language, and broad approach are all rhetorical strategies that help us understand the mindset of a sociologist. Fairchild is able to connect and converse with other sociological scholars through his broad organization style and conversational language. Understanding the different rhetorical strategies used by Magruder and Fairchild allows us to realize that economists and sociologists relate to different groups of people in society, causing them to study and analyze different points of conflict that are present in society today. An economist’s narrowly focused analytical approach is incomplete without the breadth of a sociologist’s analysis, and although these two academic disciplines may contrast one another, one must take both viewpoints into consideration in order to gain a complete understanding of the topic at hand, especially an important one like minimum wage.

An economic cartoon attempting to show a possible negative effect of increasing minimum wage. 

Works Cited

Fairchild, Daniel. "Does the Minimum Wage Help the Poor?" Forum for Social Economics, 1 Jan. 2004. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.

Magruder, Jeremy. "Can Minimum Wages Cause a Big Push? Evidence from Indonesia." Journal of Development Economics, 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.

http://la.eater.com/2015/4/20/8458065/los-angeles-minimum-wage-tipping-tax-laws-restaurants

http://thealbanyproject.com/ny-states-tipped-minimum-wage-will-exceed-federal-minimum-for-non-tipped-workers/

http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/04/u-s-territories-congress-please-dont-help-us-anymore-minimum-wage-raises/#

http://www.aei.org/publication/by-far-the-two-best-cartoons-about-the-minimum-wage-ever/

Unit 4: Rhetorical Analysis of Articles Dealing with Genetic Engineering

Gattaca
Photo by ncomment

The two soon to be parents looked at each other, exchanging nervous glances. From their expressions the doctor could tell they were apprehensive about having a genetically engineered child. The doctor leaned closer in an attempt to ease their fears, saying “We want to give your child the best possible start. Believe me, we have enough imperfection built in already. Your child doesn't need any more additional burdens. Keep in mind, this child is still you. Simply the best of you. You could conceive naturally a thousand times and never get such a result.” (Gattaca). This is a scene from the popular science fiction film Gattaca, released in 1997. When this film was first released, many did not realize how close geneticists were to being able to achieve the feats this doctor describes. Genetic engineering technology has developed rapidly in the past few decades. Scientists are able to remove DNA that codes for desirable traits out of one species, and then insert that sequence into another species genome. This technology can be immensely powerful. Genetically engineered plants can survive droughts, resists pesticides, or even emit their own toxins to stave off predators. Genetic engineering is no longer solely a subject for geneticists to discuss. Politicians and lawyers must create regulations to manage this advancing technology. Agricultural scientists must understand the pros and cons of growing genetically modified crops. Philosophers must strive to create an ethical standard to manage the development of genetic engineering. In this essay, I will discuss how philosophers and geneticists approach the subject of genetic engineering differently. Specifically, I will be looking at the article Selecting Children: The Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Engineering by philosopher S. Matthew Liao and Human Dendritic Cells Genetically Engineered to Express High Levels of the Human Epithelial Tumor Antigen Mucin (MUC-1) by Robert A. Henderson, Maya T. Nimgaonkar, Simon C. Watkins, Paul D. Robbins, Edward D. Ball, and Olivera J. Finn. Though they deal with the same subject matter, these two authors approach their subject in vastly different manors. Their differences in formatting, style of language, complexity of diction, and type of evidence make these authors works irreconcilable. The extreme disparity between the rhetorical strategy of these two authors make it seem like they would either not appreciate the significance of, or not understand one another's work.

DNA
by Stefano

The first, and easiest to notice, difference in rhetorical strategy between these two authors is their different organizational schemes. Robert A. Henderson et al. follow the AIMRAD format, which is the standard for scientific writing. The AIMRAD format is composed of an abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion, in that order. This format is useful for scientists as it guides them through the experimentation process that the authors went through, allowing them to recreate the experiment themselves in many cases. S. Matthew Liao, however, follows a much more unique format. Like Henderson et al., Liao starts with an abstract and an introduction and ends with a conclusion, but after that the similarities end. The body of Liao’s essay is divided into four main sections entitled “The Perfectionist View”, “The Libertarian View”, “The Human Nature View”, and “The Motivation View” (Liao). Each presents a unique analysis of the philosophical view being discussed, making each section independent of the others. These two authors extremely different organizational scheme suggest that they value different things in their argument. Henderson et al. present a methodical way to recreate their results in a specific setting while Liao gives several different independent views to bring the reader to his conclusion. This suggests that Henderson et al. value the ability to recreate a quantifiable result while Liao values having a wide variety in support of his conclusion. As such, it is likely that these two authors would not think the other one has supported their claim adequately. Henderson et al. would likely disregard Liao’s conclusion as it is abstract and unquantifiable while Liao would likely disregard Henderson et al.’s conclusion as being too specific and not relevant to other cases.

The next difference in these author’s rhetorical strategy is the type of language they use. Robert A. Henderson et al. use abstract language and severely limit their use of personal pronouns. Rather than state what they do to the subject during the experiment, they describe what was done to the subject. For instance, Henderson et al. writes “CD34-enriched cells at a concentration of 2 X 10 cells/ml were incubated overnight in DC medium with cytokines. Cells (2-4 X IO5) were aliquoted to 15-ml round-bottom culture tubes and resuspended in 1 ml of retroviral supernatant with cytokines and 6-8 ng/ml profumine sulfate” (Henderson et al.). The authors remove themselves almost entirely from their speech using first person pronouns on very few occasions. Authors of scientific material often do this to convey authority with their writing. By removing first person pronouns and using abstract language, their work seems irrefutable. It makes their conclusions sound more like absolute facts than conclusions made by the authors. S. Matthew Liao, however, uses a more concrete language and does not avoid first person pronouns. Instead, he writes phrases like “I would like to focus here on certain kinds of genetic engineering” or “Many people would reject the Permissive Libertarian View on the ground that it is too permissive” (Liao). Like with Henderson et al., Liao’s style conveys a sense of authority with his readers. Liao’s readers, however, do not value abstract language like the Henderson et al.’s readers. Liao’s readers value straightforward, easy to read language and understand that his conclusions are not irrefutable. These two authors different language styles, again, make it apparent that their values are too different for them to understand or appreciate each others work. Liao and his readers value a straightforward writing style while Henderson et al’s readers appreciate an abstract style which removes the authors from their work. Liao would likely dismiss Henderson et al’s work as trying to sound overly complicated while Henderson et al would dismiss Liao’s work as incredible because of his use of first person.

DNA - Green
by Spanish Flea

Another key difference in rhetorical strategy between these two authors is the complexity of their diction and how well they define their vocabulary. Henderson et al. use complex scientific jargon that only a fellow geneticist would understand. In one line Henderson et al. writes, “Epithelial cell mucin, encoded by the MUC-\ gene, is expressed by adenocarcinomas of the pancreas, breast, and ovary and by several other tumors of ductal epithelial cell origin (10)” (Henderson et al.). To even a well educated reader, this sentence would make no sense unless the reader has specific knowledge of biology or genetics. Henderson et al. make no attempt to explain any of their diction either. Instead they assume that their audience will know what terms like “epithelial cell mucin”, “glycosylated”, and “ sodium diatrizoate-Ficoll” mean (Henderson et al.). Liao, on the other hand, keeps his terminology simple and explains any terms that may be unfamiliar to the reader . During his introduction, Liao writes, “Furthermore, a distinction is often made between somatic and germline genetic engineering. Somatic engineering targets the genes in specific organs and tissues of the body of a single existing person without affecting genes in their eggs or sperm. Germline engineering targets the genes in eggs, sperm or very early embryos. My concern here will be with the ethical issues surrounding germline engineering” (Liao). By defining his terms clearly and succinctly, Liao opens up his philosophical dialogue to all philosophers, not just those who specialize in genetic ethics. These authors different ways of dealing with complex genetic diction shows yet another way in which their works are mutually exclusive. Judging by the level of genetic knowledge Liao shows in his essay, he would not understand the Henderson et al’s scientific jargon. Henderson et al., however, would be able to understand Liao’s essay, but would likely dismiss it as elementary because Liao’s diction not show a high level of genetic knowledge.

The final difference in these author’s rhetorical strategy is the type of evidence they use and how they present that evidence. Robert A. Henderson et al. use a quantifiable data as their evidence. The authors explain exactly how they obtained their data and then display it with a variety of charts, graphs, and culture slides. For instance, they include several graphs which display the number of cells in a culture plotted against the amount of time since the culture was created. They then use this evidence and draw conclusions from it in their discussions. Of course, one would not be able to understand this data or how they arrived to such conclusions unless one had a thorough knowledge of genetics. S. Matthew Liao, however, uses a series of logical points to bring the reader to his conclusion. One example is where Liao says, “The Really Great Net-Benefit Case: A very minor genetic enhancement to human nature can greatly improve human nature. If the net benefit is indeed really great, perhaps genetically enhancing human nature in such circumstances could also be permissible” (Liao). Liao presents a series of premises that, if true, prove some conclusion to be true. For instance, the above statement is making the following argument:

Premise 1: A minor genetic enhancement can greatly improve human nature.

Premise 2: Anything which greatly enhances human nature is morally permissible.

Conclusion: Minor genetic enhancements can be morally permissible.

Liao explains this argument in much more detail in his essay, using basic logic to show that the premises are true. The different types of evidence these authors implement are so vastly different that it seems unlikely that the authors would accept each others conclusions. It is unlikely that Liao would be able to decipher the graphs and data that Henderson et al. use as evidence. While Henderson et al., may be able to follow the logical sequence of Liao, they would likely dismiss his premises or conclusion as qualitative and not find it convincing.

Zebra-Pferd Eclyse im Zoo Safaripark Stukenbrock
by uri press GmbH

Although Henderson et al.’s Human Dendritic Cells Genetically Engineered to Express High Levels of the Human Epithelial Tumor Antigen Mucin (MUC-1) and Liao’s Selecting Children: The Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Engineering both approach the same topic, they do so in vastly different manners. Henderson et al. use the AIMRAD format, complicated technical jargon, abstract language, and numerical evidence displayed in graphs and charts. Liao, however, uses a style unique to his essay, explains his vocabulary clearly, uses concrete language, and uses logical premises as evidence. Although both articles authors deal with the genetic engineering in humans, their rhetorical strategies are so vastly different that it is unlikely the authors of these two articles would understand or appreciate one another’s work. For some topics it would not matter if different disciplines could not collaborate properly, but that is not the case for genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is one of the this generations fastest growing technologies. Society is rapidly approaching the day that science fiction movies like Gattaca become a reality. As such, geneticists and philosophers must learn to write so that they can understand and value each others writing. If the philosophers who are helping the public form opinions on the ethics of human genetic engineering do not understand the science behind it, then they cannot form truly informed arguments and if the scientists working on these genetic modifications do not understand the ethical implications of what they are doing, genetic engineering may advance to a point that is not morally acceptable.

---

Gattaca. Perf. Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman. Columbia Pictures, 1997. DVD.

Henderson, Robert A., Maya T. Nimgaonkar, Simon C. Watkins, Paul D. Robbins, Edward D. Ball, and Olivera J. Finn. "Human Dendritic Cells Genetically Engineered to Express High Levels of the Human Epithelial Tumor Antigen Mucin (MUC-1)." Cancer Research 56 (1996): 3763-770. Print.

Liao, S. Matthew. “Selecting Children: The Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Engineering.” Philosophy Compass 3.5 (2008): 973–991. Web.

View of Genetically Modified Crops From Science and Food Policy

With a growing population and climate change, the world's agricultural sector is being stressed to the point where a single crop failure can cause the deaths of tens of thousands of people. With so many lives at stake the pressure of finding a suitable solution could not be greater. Genetically Modified Organisms(GMO’s) could increase yield, increase nutrition, and reduce dependence on human intervention in all sections of the world's agriculture. The problem is people do not trust the government or corporations with the research and regulation, yet the public can not fully understand the scientific research on their own. What the world needs is a bridge between the scientific facts and public opinion so that the average person can understand that GMO’s are harmless and revolutionary. The scientific article “Effects of Plants Genetically Modified for Insect Resistance on Nontarget Organisms” uses dense scientific language, thorough research, heavy use of jargon and a scientific method approach while the food policy article "The Social Aspects of Food Biotechnology: A European View." uses persuasive language, coherent data, understandable words and a clear overall logical arc. The differences in the two rhetorical strategies are in direct relation to who the target audience is, which compromises the ability of public policy to accurately reflect scientific findings. Consequently, a misunderstanding in public opinion arises from a lack of communication in science and public policy.

Different types of language are used in the articles in order to fit into their specific rhetorical contexts of scientific and public policy. These language styles play a major role in making the articles understandable, significant, and creditable to their own specific audiences. Conventional scientific research papers use dense, matter of fact language based on brute facts. The scientists who read the articles are only interested in the factual side of the arguments. The scientific article “Effects of Plants Genetically Modified for Insect Resistance on Nontarget Organisms” uses a very high level of language to best express the findings of the research to their fellow scientist audience. In order to understand why the scientific article uses such a high level of language one must understand the target audience is capable of deciphering and expanding on the findings in the article. On the other hand, the food policy article "The Social Aspects of Food Biotechnology: A European View." is not as high a level of writing, as it is not intended for scientists. This article is discussing the topic of public opinion, surveys, and laws which is much more familiar to average person than a scientific article, even though average people are not the intended audience. The food policy article still uses some high level writing as it is a scholarly article, yet the average person who is not a scholar would have a much easier time reading it over the scientific article. The intended audience for the Food policy article are people who would fit into categories of food policy, public policy, or even environmental toxicology. In order to appeal to this interesting group the article needs a little of the dense scientific of writing for the environmental toxicologists, but also some persuasive language, logic and survey findings for the public policy. The food policy article takes the public policy side of its argument and uses persuasive language just like policy makers would. Differences in the scientific and public policy style of writing and their use of language relates directly to who their target audience is. In order to be effective the two articles must appeal to their audience by using either dense, high style for scientists, or persuasive, more user friendly style for policy makers. These rhetorical differences limit the amount of communication possible between disciplines, making it more difficult for the policy makers to correctly reflect scientific findings.

In scientific articles and public policy articles alike, research and data are the backbone for every argument. The data that is used is what provides the force behind each argument and helps persuade the audience. Even though both articles rely on research and data, the type of data they present is vastly different. The scientific article presents data in a manner of stating the findings of their research, for example “The extensive testing on nontarget plant-feeding insects and beneficial species that has accompanied the long-term and wide-scale use of Bt plants has not detected significant adverse effects.” This manner of presenting data and the findings of the research in combination with citing other scientific research articles is very effective in informing the scientific audience because it gets directly to the point. The data that is given in the scientific article is to be used or compared to once the audience has conducted their own research. On the other hand, the food policy article uses understandable data in the persuasion of their audience, for example “The majority of the respondents (74%) favour labelling of genetically modified foods”. In addition the article references many other public surveys and articles along with statements from the EPA (Environmental protection agency) in order to gain credibility with the readers. In each section of the food policy article there is some form of data, most of the time percentages or bulleted lists. These groups of data are easy to understand and decipher, considering at some point in time that same data will be presented to the public. These differences in data type and presentation show who the target audience of the articles are and the eventual use of the data. The scientific article presents their data in a matter of fact, straightforward way while the food policy article uses persuasion and easy to understand data. The scientific article “Effects of Plants Genetically Modified for Insect Resistance on Nontarget Organisms” is providing their research to other scientists for the use in further research, while the food policy article "The Social Aspects of Food Biotechnology: A European View." is providing their data to other policy makers with the intention of effecting the public with it in the near future.

Terms used in each article are very specific to their area of expertise, and limit the amount of adequate communication across the disciplines. The scientific article “Effects of Plants Genetically Modified for Insect Resistance on Nontarget Organisms” uses a lot of jargon that only scientists could understand. Great deals of prior knowledge are required to understand the logic of the scientists in their study:

“PIs are generally benign to natural enemies when expressed in GM plants or fed to prey in artificial diets. However, cowpea trypsin inhibitor (CpTI)-injected tomato moth caterpillars (Lacanobia oleracea) given to the predator Podisus maculiventris resulted in reduced nymph growth and adult female weights, but experiments with the same insects fed CpTI potatoes showed no negative effects on the predator (4).”
This amount of heavy scientific terms is to be expected since the article was not written for the general public, but for other scientists who would be capable of understanding and furthering the research. The use of the scientific terms allows very accurate communication between the authors and the audience, which is very necessary in science. On the contrary the food policy article uses very little to no jargon or unrecognizable words because the material they are discussing is more popularly known. The terms that the food policy article uses are terms that are specific to policy making. These policy making terms are not as specific or difficult to understand for the general public because by definition policy making is meant to influence the public. In order for the public to gain the correct view of GMO’s, public policy must be able to understand and convey the scientific findings in a way that is understandable yet accurate.

Each article takes a much different style of organization and argument structure than the other, which is based on who the article is trying to influence. The scientific article dives head first into the dense scientific research with no introduction or definition section to guide uneducated readers. This is understandable because no person who is not in the scientific field will be reading and trying to understand the paper. The scientific article skips from paragraph to paragraph, each explaining a different organisms reaction to GMO’s. Each of the sections seems very separate from the other with little transition sentences or overall logical arc. The food policy article on the other hand does follow a clear overall logical arc. The beginning of the paper has a definition and overview section that helps readers establish a small amount of background knowledge before reading the paper. For example the article gives the definition “‘Biotechnology is the application of scientific and engineering principles to the processing of materials by biological agents to provide goods and services’”. After the introductions the paper follows a persuasive style of approach with some background, evidence, then persuasive paragraph that uses logical appeals. This style of approach is effective in convincing the policy making audience that the authors argument is valid and correct. The two styles of organization are to be expected in their particular fields, yet they are very different and do not mix well together. The cooperation between the two argument styles is critical to the development of public policies ability to effectively and accurately reflect scientific findings to the public.

The ability to grow a higher quality and quantity of crops to feed the world is a opportunity that humanity can not pass up. Even though people accept almost all new technologies without hesitation, GMO’s meet surprisingly intense resistance. GMO’s are a very controversial topic that requires heavy research and convincing of the public that they are safe. Public belief of GMO safety will only be capable if they are presented understandable data from a trustable source that is reinforced with scientific research. The understanding of the scientific article “Effects of Plants Genetically Modified for Insect Resistance on Nontarget Organisms” and the food policy article "The Social Aspects of Food Biotechnology: A European View." will allow us to close the gap between important research and the public opinion of the influential new technology. If public policy is able to get past the rhetorical differences and understand the science article, they will be able to correctly influence the public. Once the public is presented with the proper information about GMO’s and their influence on crops, we will be able to use their capabilities to increase agriculture. With the right balance of science and public policy the world can understand and use the powerful ability of GMO’s to help humanities agricultural needs.


Sources -
O'Callaghan, Maureen. "EFFECTS OF PLANTS GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOR INSECT RESISTANCE ON NONTARGET ORGANISMS." ENTOMOLOGY 50 (2005). Annual Reviews. Web. 17 Apr. 2015. <http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.ento.50.071803.130352>.

Barling, David. "The Social Aspects of Food Biotechnology: A European View."Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 7.2. ScienceDirect. Web. 17 Apr. 2015. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668999000095>.

Curtis, K.R., McCluskey, J.J., & Wahl, T.I. (2004). Consumer acceptance of genetically modified food products in the developing world. AgBioForum,7(1&2), 70-75. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.

Asen, Robert. "Rhetoric Society of America | Rhetoric and Public Policy." Rhetoric Society of America | Rhetoric and Public Policy. Web. 17 Apr. 2015. <http://rhetoricsociety.org/aws/RSA/pt/sd/news_article/58948/_blank/layout_details/false>.

"Guide for Authors | Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology." Elsevier. Web. 17 Apr. 2015. <http://www.elsevier.com/journals/environmental-toxicology-and-pharmacology/1382-6689/guide-for-authors#14000>.

Nelson, C. H. "Risk Perception, Behavior, and Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Organisms: Toward Understanding American and European Public Reaction." American Behavioral Scientist (2001): 1371-388. Sage Journals. Web. 16 Apr. 2015. <http://abs.sagepub.com/content/44/8/1371.full.pdf html>

Unit 4 WIP - Artificial Sweeteners

For my next post, I'll be presenting a rhetorical analysis on the health impacts of artificial sweeteners. We hear about artificial sweeteners a lot in the media, and their supposed health benefits and risks. We might even see the occasional discussion chain about artificial sweeteners on social media sites. Whether it's a result of clever advertising or popular misinformation, it's our job as informed readers to be able to distinguish the truth from myths. That's also why I chose this topic; I feel like it would be an interesting thing to really understand the details about.

I'll be discussing the approaches and points of views from two academic disciplines: biology (or, more specifically, immunology) and nutrition science. The two articles that I'll be referencing from these disciplines include original research, and present the implications of the artificial sweeteners differently. The biologist/immunologist point of view is very detailed, and explains the mechanics behind what happened during their experiment, but "fails to deliver" in the end, or explain how these could impact the future for the reader. The nutrition science point of view thoroughly relates its findings with the reader and what's happening in the real world, but does not completely explain the details behind why some of the results happened. Only seeing one side of this topic and not the other could result in an ultimately incomplete understanding, or maybe even misinformed position, which is why seeing the differences and strengths between these two approaches is crucial.

Unit 4 WIP - Minimum Wage

For my next post, I will be discussing the idea of minimum wage from the point of view of an economist and a sociologist. I have decided to write about the minimum wage because it is something that affects a significant amount of today’s workforce, and it also plays a big role on the economy of a country with a minimum wage. I have also worked a job that pays minimum wage, and I have always wondered what life is like for those who fully depend on it.

I will be performing a rhetorical analysis on two scholarly articles, one written from an economist and the other a sociologist. The article written by the economist talks about how minimum wage encourages a big push, otherwise known as the increase of formal employment and decrease in informal employment, which influences the equilibrium wage level in a way that favors employees. The sociologist’s article discusses whether minimum wage helps the poor or not, and the sociologist comes to a conclusion that minimum wage does not help the poor. These two articles are applicable and noteworthy to us because we live in a country with minimum wage, and we must determine for ourselves if the minimum wage is something that can benefit or damage our personal lives and economy we live in. The rhetorical analysis will be useful here because the different rhetorical methods of each author influences the reader in different ways, and the rhetorical analysis will help to understand which rhetorical methods are more convincing. The article with more effective rhetorical methods will ultimately influence the reader for or against minimum wage.

Unit 4 WIP: A Sneak Peak of my Rhetorical Analysis

For my next post, I will be writing a rhetorical analysis comparing the conventions of two disciplines. More specifically, I will be looking at how a philosopher and a geneticist approach the topic of human genetic engineering differently. The articles I will be analysing are Human Dendritic Cells Genetically Engineered to Express High Levels of the Human Epithelial Tumor Antigen Mucin (MUC-1) by Robert A. Henderson et al. and Selecting Children: The Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Engineering by S. Matthew Liao. I will be analysing how the authors different rhetorical strategies create a disconnect between the articles even though they are on the same subject. Some of the aspects I will be looking at include differences in format, types of evidence used, style of language, and complexity of diction.

While this may seem like an incredibly abstract argument, this argument is relevant to you, the reader, for two reasons. Firstly, the topic of human genetic engineering is a hotbed for controversy that will not be going away anytime soon. As academics, we must strive to understand at least the basis of this subject so that we may understand the ethical complications which will arise in the future. Secondly, and more importantly, the rhetorical differences between these two pieces of work are irreconcilable. The differences in what the authors value as evidence seems to imply that the authors would either not understand each others work, or not see the value in it. This is important for two reasons. Firstly, if the philosophers who are helping the public form opinions on the ethics of human genetic engineering do not understand the science behind it, then they cannot form truly informed arguments. Secondly, if the scientists working on these genetic modifications do not understand the ethical implications of what they are doing, genetic engineering may advance to a point that is not morally acceptable.