1. Wielding Rhetoric for More Effective Science Writing
presentation materials available at:
Wielding Rhetoric for More Effective Science Writing
Kevin Brock Department of English Language and Literature University of South Carolina

2. Wielding Rhetoric for Science Writing
Fundamental Considerations for Writing
Rhetorical Appeals
Rhetorical Genres
Science Writing
The Academic Introduction
CARS in Action
The Grant Proposal
A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal
Conclusions
Further Reading

3. Fundamental Considerations for Writing
Who are you writing to/for?
What do you know about this audience's expectations?
Why is this issue worth talking about here and now, in this way?
What do you want your audience to do as a result of encountering your text?

4. Wielding Rhetoric for Science Writing
Fundamental Considerations for Writing
Rhetorical Appeals
Rhetorical Genres
Science Writing
The Academic Introduction
CARS in Action
The Grant Proposal
A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal
Conclusions
Further Reading

5. Rhetorical Appeals
Ethos: an appeal to the writer's character (moral quality, recognized expertise or authority, credibility, etc.)
Logos: an appeal to reason or logic (including situational logics like ideologies and 'common sense' as undertstood by specific populations)
Pathos: an appeal to the emotional or non-rational preferences of the audience
Writers generally use a combination of at least two of these appeals, to varying degrees, in any given text.

6. Rhetorical Appeals
Rhetorical appeals can also exist outside written text. Visual rhetoric in particular plays a key role in science writing.
How does the inclusion of certain visual data influence how an audience might respond to your overall argument?
What kind of visualization are you more or less inclined to accept as valid when you look at it?
When and where in a text might visual elements be more or less powerful in regards to influencing the persuasive nature of your argument?

7. Visual Rhetoric
Compare the graph to the right with the two graphs below.
Which is the more effective (persuasive) approach?
(Images from Niemantsverdriet 2008)

8. Enthymeme
The enthymeme is a central tool for writers as a means of persuading audiences to complete logical equations (syllogisms) that have been left unfinished by a writer.
The classic example of an enthymeme:
Humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.

9. Enthymeme
The enthymeme is a central tool for writers as a means of persuading audiences to complete logical equations (syllogisms) that have been left unfinished by a writer.
The classic example of an enthymeme:
Humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Unstated conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

10. Enthymeme A more debatable enthymeme:
My brother has horrible taste in movies.
He and his girlfriend love Adam Sandler movies.

11. Enthymeme A more debatable enthymeme:
My brother has horrible taste in movies.
He and his girlfriend love Adam Sandler movies.
Unstated premise: My brother‘s girlfriend has horrible taste in movies.
Unstated conclusion: Adam Sandler movies are horrible.

12. Wielding Rhetoric for Science Writing
Fundamental Considerations for Writing
Rhetorical Appeals
Rhetorical Genres
Science Writing
The Academic Introduction
CARS in Action
The Grant Proposal
A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal
Conclusions
Further Reading

13. Rhetorical Genres
Genres are categories of texts recognizable through shared features to particular communities.
These recognizable features are called conventions and slowly change over time as community memberships change.
Example non-academic writing genres:
Class syllabus
Movie trailer for a romantic comedy
Grocery list
Standard Operating Procedures
What can we recognize about the rhetorical conventions of a given genre?

14. Wielding Rhetoric for Science Writing
Fundamental Considerations for Writing
Rhetorical Appeals
Rhetorical Genres
Science Writing
The Academic Introduction
CARS in Action
The Grant Proposal
A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal
Conclusions
Further Reading

15. Science Writing
Science writing is, for the most part, not entirely objective in nature and, when it comes to academic writing, not always logical.
Instead, combinations of ethos, logos, and pathos help writers in the sciences persuade their audiences to accept (among other concerns):
The significance of a given study
The connection between a study and prior findings
The expertise of the author(s) in competently performing a study
How best (and why) to continue research in particular directions
For more, see: Penrose and Katz 2010; Ceccarelli 2001.

16. Science Writing
Science writing involves deliberation (debate, discussion, persuasion) to construct facts, which grow out of paradigmatic changes in how we understand the universe (e.g., Einstein's Theory of Relativity, the 18th c. Chemical Revolution, and Mendelian genetic inheritance). For more, see Kuhn 1996; Latour 1987.
(Image from Latour 1987, p. 12.)

17. Wielding Rhetoric for Science Writing
Fundamental Considerations for Writing
Rhetorical Appeals
Rhetorical Genres
Science Writing
The Academic Introduction
CARS in Action
The Grant Proposal
A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal
Conclusions
Further Reading

18. The Academic Introduction
Academic introductions, across numerous disciplines, generally perform a shared series of rhetorical strategies to persuade scholarly audiences of the value of the topic under discussion.
John Swales, a scholar of applied linguistics who studies genre, describes the generic structure of academic introductions through a model called 'Creating a Research Space,' or CARS. (Swales 2008)

19. Creating a Research Space
Establish a research territory.
claim centrality/significance, and/or
place your research within the field and/or
review items of previous research
Establish a niche.
make a counter-claim, or
indicate a gap in existing research, or
raise one or more questions about existing research, or
continue a tradition
Occupy the niche.
outline the purpose of the text or state the pursued research, or
announce the principle findings, or
indicate the research article structure

20. Wielding Rhetoric for Science Writing
Fundamental Considerations for Writing
Rhetorical Appeals
Rhetorical Genres
Science Writing
The Academic Introduction
CARS in Action
The Grant Proposal
A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal
Conclusions
Further Reading

21. CARS in Action
Let's look at a recent (advance online) publication from members of the College of Pharmacy:
Fisher ML, LeMalefant RM, Zhou L, Huang G, Turner JR. Distinct roles of CREB within the ventral and dorsal hippocampus in mediating nicotine withdrawal phenotypes. Neuropsychopharmacology 2016;16 Nov.;1-11;doi: /npp

22. CARS in Action Rhetorical move #1: 'Establish a territory.'
Last year marked the 50th Anniversary of the Surgeon General Report on Smoking and Health, yet nearly 20% of Americans continue to smoke (CDC, 1988). Nicotine, one of the main addictive psychopharmacological ingredients found in tobacco, is believed to mediate dependency on cigarettes. While acute nicotine produces modest reinforcing effects (Mansvelder et al, 2002), chronic nicotine use results in neuroadaptive changes (Tiffany et al, 2004). During abstinence from chronic nicotine use, cognitive and affective withdrawal (WD) symptoms emerge and these symptoms are likely due to chronic nicotine’s neuroadaptive effects (De Biasi and Salas, 2008). WD symptoms are the predominant driving factors to relapse to smoking, accounting for why 80% of smokers attempting to quit, fail (Nishino et al, 2014). Therefore, more mechanistic understanding of the neural correlates underpinning these symptoms may lead to better treatment options for nicotine dependence.

23. CARS in Action Rhetorical move #1: 'Establish a territory.'
Previous studies suggest the involvement of CREB (cAMP-responsive element binding protein)-dependent transcription in the molecular mechanism of dependence on multiple drugs of abuse, including nicotine (Nestler, 2005). In human studies, there is an observed correlation between the number of cigarettes smoked per day and CREB expression (Lenz et al, 2010). In adult mice, CREB activation is necessary for nicotine reward (Walters et al, 2005). These findings suggest a possible role for CREB in mediating the neuroplasticity changes that characterize nicotine dependence (Kutlu and Gould, 2016). Furthermore, CREB may be required for behaviors that manifest during abstinence as well […] Previous work from our lab has shown that these effects are region-specific; in the hippocampus, both pCREB and CREB binding to target genes can be correlated with nicotine WD phenotypes (Turner et al, 2014). However, whether CREB activity in the hippocampus is necessary for nicotine WD-induced behaviors is unknown.

24. CARS in Action Rhetorical move #2: 'Establish a niche.'
Previous studies suggest the involvement of CREB (cAMP-responsive element binding protein)-dependent transcription in the molecular mechanism of dependence on multiple drugs of abuse, including nicotine (Nestler, 2005). In human studies, there is an observed correlation between the number of cigarettes smoked per day and CREB expression (Lenz et al, 2010). In adult mice, CREB activation is necessary for nicotine reward (Walters et al, 2005). These findings suggest a possible role for CREB in mediating the neuroplasticity changes that characterize nicotine dependence (Kutlu and Gould, 2016). Furthermore, CREB may be required for behaviors that manifest during abstinence as well […] Previous work from our lab has shown that these effects are region-specific; in the hippocampus, both pCREB and CREB binding to target genes can be correlated with nicotine WD phenotypes (Turner et al, 2014). However, whether CREB activity in the hippocampus is necessary for nicotine WD-induced behaviors is unknown.

25. CARS in Action Rhetorical move #3: 'Occupy the niche.'
Supporting data in human (Picciotto et al, 2002; Pomerleau et al, 2005) and animal models (Costall et al, 1989; Jackson et al, 2008) link hippocampal function with cognitive and affective nicotine WD impairments […] Additionally, these studies report a correlation between hippocampal volume and successful quit attempts (Froeliger et al, 2010). However, the hippocampus is not a homogenous structure, but instead can be divided into dorsal and ventral regions, each mediating different behaviors (Fanselow and Dong, 2010). […] Previous studies from our lab show that hippocampal CREB signaling and the concurrent synaptic plasticity changes may underlie nicotine WD phenotypes in mice (Turner et al, 2014) (Turner et al, 2013). However, the hippocampal specificity of these effects is unknown. Therefore, this study examines how region-specific CREB deletion in either the dorsal or ventral hippocampus impacts 24 h WD behavioral phenotypes and what possible CREB targets may be responsible.

26. CARS in Action CARS serves as a helpful model because it
Is technically structure-independent (that is, there are many ways to go about achieving the goals of an effective CARS introduction and its moves).
Focuses on the purpose for the overall argument presented in an introduction.
Establishes a significance for the overall text so that readers will be more likely to accept subsequent argument and support—setting up context for the methodology of a study, anticipating the interpretation of results, and so on.

27. Wielding Rhetoric for Science Writing
Fundamental Considerations for Writing
Rhetorical Appeals
Rhetorical Genres
Science Writing
The Academic Introduction
CARS in Action
The Grant Proposal
A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal
Conclusions
Further Reading

28. The Grant Proposal Understanding the grant proposal as a genre:
What do grant proposals attempt to do? (What's the point?)
What do we understand about a given funding agency and its mission/purpose?
How can we communicate the goal of our project to this particular agency? (This generally requires some related questions.)
Is there an expected structure?
What sort of language/voice/style to use?
What kinds of sources should we rely on, and how?

29. Writing in/for the Sciences
Fundamental Considerations for Writing
Rhetorical Appeals
Rhetorical Genres
Science Writing
The Academic Introduction
CARS in Action
The Grant Proposal
A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal
Conclusions
Further Reading

30. A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal
Let's look at a proposal generously shared by Dr. Michael Wyatt, which he wrote in response to a R21 funding opportunity titled 'Biomarkers of Infection-Associated Cancers.'
The purpose of the opportunity as listed on the RFA:
This funding opportunity announcement (FOA), issued by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR), of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), encourages the submission of Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Award (R21) applications from institutions and organizations that propose to identify biomarkers for cancers where the etiology of the disease is attributed to infectious agents.

31. A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal
From Wyatt's proposal narrative:
Cervical cancer, caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, affects 12,000 women annually in the U.S., yet cervical cancer is a rare outcome of HPV infection, which is estimated to be greater than 10 million. Moreover, Pap test screening produces approximately 1 in 10 abnormal tests that require costly and emotionally taxing follow ups that often show no evidence of disease. This project will discover new biomarkers that can predict which HPV infections are most likely to lead to cervical cancer, thus greatly reducing the economic and psychological burden associated with the current system of testing.

32. A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal
This brief narrative follows the basic CARS model, by the way:
Move #1 ('Establish a territory'): Cervical cancer, caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, affects 12,000 women annually in the U.S., yet cervical cancer is a rare outcome of HPV infection, which is estimated to be greater than 10 million.
Move #2 ('Establish a niche'): Moreover, Pap test screening produces approximately 1 in 10 abnormal tests that require costly and emotionally taxing follow ups that often show no evidence of disease.
Move #3 ('Occupy the niche'): This project will discover new biomarkers that can predict which HPV infections are most likely to lead to cervical cancer, thus greatly reducing the economic and psychological burden associated with the current system of testing.

33. A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal
From the section of Wyatt's proposal on the project's aims:
The estimated prevalence of cervical human papillomavirus (HPV) infections in U.S. women is greater than 10 million, with approximately 6.2 million new infections per year. Yet, cervical cancer is a rare outcome of HPV infection, with about 12,000 new cases of cervical cancer reported annually in the U.S. […] Although Pap test screening has reduced cervical cancer rates in the U.S., the test has low sensitivity and women must undergo repeated tests. Moreover, about 10% of Pap tests are read as “abnormal” (LSIL or HSIL), often resulting in follow up procedures such as colposcopy and biopsy, which are costly and have significant morbidity and emotional consequences. Thus, there is a great clinical need to identify biomarkers that are predictive of the small number of persistent, high-risk HPV infections […] so that medical resources can be directed to the women truly at risk.

34. A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal
From the section of Wyatt's proposal on the project's significance:
[V]alid biomarkers of HPV persistence would greatly reduce the economic and psychological burden associated with the current screening system of over testing and overtreatment by greatly reducing the number of women who are routinely screened. This application proposes to explore HPV DNA methylation status and SNPs potentially associated with HPV methylation status as biomarkers of HPV persistence. Such biomarkers would revolutionize cervical cancer screening procedures.

35. A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal
In the section of Wyatt's proposal on the project's significance, Wyatt builds a multifaceted argument for the significant and innovative nature of his project:
These reports have raised the possibility that DNA methylation […] genes may serve as a robust biomarker predictive of the risk of cervical disease progression, but note that to our knowledge, no study has attempted to correlate methylation with viral persistence, prior to the appearance of abnormal cytology.
Later, in the same section:
Polymorphisms in BER encoding genes and associations with folate status have received attention in studies of other cancers (35, 36), but have not been examined in the context of HPV and cervical cancer.

36. A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal
In the section of Wyatt's proposal on the project's innovation(s):
This proposal takes advantage of a unique prospective study carried out at the University of South Carolina (USC), the Carolina Women’s Care Study (CWCS) funded by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (P20 MD001770, PIs Drs. Creek and Sandra Glover) […] A strength of this R21 proposal is that all of the samples to be used in the proposed studies have already been collected and are available for immediate analyses. In addition, all of the HPV detection and typing of these samples is completed.

37. Wielding Rhetoric for Science Writing
Fundamental Considerations for Writing
Rhetorical Appeals
Rhetorical Genres
Science Writing
The Academic Introduction
CARS in Action
The Grant Proposal
A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal
Conclusions
Further Reading

38. Conclusions
Effective writing—whether for the sciences or not—is not a skill that comes easily or naturally to most individuals.
Draft often, regardless of how polished the text is as a result of any individual writing section.
Revise just as often.
Get feedback from informed readers.
Constantly think about your audience:
Who are you writing to/for?
What do you need to say to persuade that audience to agree with your argument?
How do you need to say it?

39. Conclusions

40. Conclusions
Almost all writing scholars view the act of writing as a reflexive, recursive process rather than as a linear activity. Put another way: relying on an 'n of 1 (one)' is never the approach you want to bank on.
Again, draft often.
Again, revise often.
Write in bursts. Write 'sloppily' at first if need be, to get your ideas on paper/screen. Polish those ideas later (see 'revise often' above!) as more of the text comes together.
Following my advice is not a guarantee that your writing will always be successful. However, your writing is statistically far more likely to be successful if you listen than if you ignore it.
Good luck writing!

41. Wielding Rhetoric for Science Writing
Fundamental Considerations for Writing
Rhetorical Appeals
Rhetorical Genres
Science Writing
The Academic Introduction
CARS in Action
The Grant Proposal
A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal
Conclusions
Further Reading

42. Further Reading
Ceccarelli L Shaping science with rhetoric: The cases of Dobzhansky, Schrodinger, and Wilson. Chicago: U Chicago; 204 p.
Kuhn TS The structure of scientific revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: U Chicago; 212 p.
Latour B Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP; 274 p.
Niemantsverdriet JW How to give successful oral and poster presentations. Available from
Penrose AM and Katz SB Writing in the sciences: Exploring conventions of scientific discourse. 3rd ed. New York: Longman; 425 p.
Swales JM Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge UP; 261 p.