Last fall, I wrote a rhetorical case study for a Rhetoric and Scientific Controversy class. I focused on the controversy surrounding Andrew Wakefield, his claims about vaccines causing autism, and why people did and still do believe him, despite revelations since his initial report that have proved his methods faulty and unethical, and multiple studies which have shown his to be false.
Rhetoric played a dual role in this paper- first in analyzing the rhetoric used by Wakefield and his opponents, and second in forming my own persuasive arguments about how scientists can better use rhetoric to persuade the public. I examined how Wakefield's careful use of pathos and constructed ethos and logos were more readily believed by the public than the reports published later to disprove his claims. I sought to demonstrate that while the scientific reports were factually correct, they were cold and not reader-friendly to the general public. Because they held no appeal to the average person, they were not as easily accepted. On the other hand, Wakefield used phrases like "It's a moral issue for me. I can't support the continued use of these three vaccines, given in combination until this issue has been resolved" (Deer, Brian. Andrew Wakefield: the fraud investigation. 2011.)
My own argument about the rhetoric used on both sides of the issue was that doctors and scientists have a tendency to write for other doctors and scientists, without giving any thought to a public audience. Factual information on topics like the connection (or lack thereof) between vaccines and autism is difficult for the general public to access- which can create serious social issues as people believe the false, easily understood claim and then refrain from vaccinating their children, which in turn leads to outbreaks of diseases that had been almost eradicated. Therefore, the scientific community has a responsibility to make information that has a public impact more available and understandable to the general public and must lose the attitude that false arguments like Wakefield's aren't worthy of a response or rebuttal. They must understand that the public resists an arrogant refusal to clarify information.
Rhetoric played a dual role in this paper- first in analyzing the rhetoric used by Wakefield and his opponents, and second in forming my own persuasive arguments about how scientists can better use rhetoric to persuade the public. I examined how Wakefield's careful use of pathos and constructed ethos and logos were more readily believed by the public than the reports published later to disprove his claims. I sought to demonstrate that while the scientific reports were factually correct, they were cold and not reader-friendly to the general public. Because they held no appeal to the average person, they were not as easily accepted. On the other hand, Wakefield used phrases like "It's a moral issue for me. I can't support the continued use of these three vaccines, given in combination until this issue has been resolved" (Deer, Brian. Andrew Wakefield: the fraud investigation. 2011.)
My own argument about the rhetoric used on both sides of the issue was that doctors and scientists have a tendency to write for other doctors and scientists, without giving any thought to a public audience. Factual information on topics like the connection (or lack thereof) between vaccines and autism is difficult for the general public to access- which can create serious social issues as people believe the false, easily understood claim and then refrain from vaccinating their children, which in turn leads to outbreaks of diseases that had been almost eradicated. Therefore, the scientific community has a responsibility to make information that has a public impact more available and understandable to the general public and must lose the attitude that false arguments like Wakefield's aren't worthy of a response or rebuttal. They must understand that the public resists an arrogant refusal to clarify information.
No comments:
Post a Comment