Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

In this post, I will analyze the rhetorical situations of three texts related to biomedical engineering. In particular, I will comment on the author, audience, and context of these opinionated public speech acts.

Major, Ted, "RhetoricalTriangle." 01/13/14 via Flckr. Attribution-ShareAlike License.

1. "Embryonic Stem-Cell Research — The Case for Federal Funding"

• Author/speaker: This text is written by Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D. Drazen is the editor-in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, which is the journal in which this piece is published. As a current resident of Massachusetts, he is a distinguished professor of medicine and physiology at Harvard University. Additionally, he has served on several committees for the National Institutes of Health. Given this background, he seems to be a credible source of information in this subject matter.
• Audience: This piece is published in a scientific journal, so it seems to be intended for other members of the scientific community. It functions mostly as a persuasive text, so the intended audience may be scientists who do not want federal funding for stem cell research. Given the medium of publication and the content, I think it is safe to assume that the text is meant for a scientific audience with opposing viewpoints.
• Context: This article was published on October 21, 2004 in a scientific journal. As such, it can be assumed that the article was peer-reviewed, as is a convention for most texts published in scientific journals. This article may have been a reaction to stem cell research policy under the Bush administration, which banned federal funding for such research. While it is about a decade old, this article is related to the current debate about federal funding for this research as well.

2. "'Bionic Man' Warns of Ethical Minefield

• Author/speaker: This article is written by Vanessa Thorpe, an arts and media correspondent for The Guardian and The Observer from London. While she does not necessarily have a scientific background, she offers commentary on a documentary regarding a scientific and ethical matter. In this case, she seems credible enough to communicate the opinion of the "bionic man," Bertolt Meyer, as expressed in his documentary.
• Audience: The audience of this article seems to include anyone of the general public who has an interest in prosthetic technology. However, Meyer's speech act, as it is depicted in the article, seems to specifically target scientists and engineers who are working to advance the technology. Because Meyer warns about the ethical implications of this technology, he seems to be targeting the people who are responsible for its advancement. 
• Context: This article was published on September 28, 2013 in The Guardian, a general online news source. This medium's typical goal is to convey information to a wide audience in a concise manner. The ethical implications of prosthetics that are communicated in this article seem to stem from the issue of using this technology in the  Paralympic Games as a sort of advantage. The issues that Meyer addresses here are a common topic of debate with regards to prosthetic technology.

3. "Print Thyself"

• Author/speaker: This article is written by Jerome Groopman, a staff writer for The New Yorker. He has been staff writer since 1998, and specifically publishes material related to science and biology. Amongst other things, holds a Chair of Medicine and Harvard University, and contributes to much research related to AIDS and cancer. In addition, he has served on number scientific editorial boards. Due to all of his prior experience, he seems to be a very credible author.
• Audience: This article seems to be intended for anyone who has an interest in this subject. Groopman clearly defines any scientific terms he uses, and rather than focusing the article on scientific studies, he describes case studies in which this technology was useful. The language and content of the article makes it accessible to anyone, with and without a scientific background.
• Context: This article was published on November 24, 2014, in The New Yorker. This medium usually offers commentary on recent topics of interest, in a way that is not always unbiased. Thus, although Groopman clearly communicates his viewpoint, he does it in a way that is fitting with the conventions of this genre. This article directly relates to recent developments in 3-D printing, and the debatable applications of this technology. By expressing his support for the technology, the author contributes to a very polarizing discussion that has recently surrounded the topic of 3-D printing for biological applications.

Reflection

After reading Samantha's and Evan's posts, I have been able to more clearly understand the idea of a "rhetorical situation." To me, it seems like the most interesting rhetorical situations are found in the sources that are clearly opinionated, but still credible. In both Samantha's and Evan's posts, I found that the articles that were clearly biased, but still reliable, were most dynamic and interesting to read about and analyze. 

I think my three sources were sufficiently analyzed in a way that is similar to my classmates' analyses. However, reading their posts has given me some idea of what to look for when I am performing similar analyses throughout this project.