The controversy about vaccines and autism presents an opportunity to explore how science is constructed in public debates about health and medicine. Rhetors who argue against a connection between vaccines and autism insist that their opponents are irrational, while rhetors arguing for a link insist that their fears are rational indeed. This analysis poses an alternative way of understanding the vaccines-autism controversy, suggesting that it is partly fueled by differing perceptions of the boundary between science and non-science. Using the concept of boundary work as a lens, this article uses generative rhetorical criticism to examine artifacts within the controversy and explores rhetorical constructions of scientific evidence, the forum of scientific discourse, scientific expertise, and the scientific capability. The findings suggest that rhetors’ awareness of disciplinary boundaries is just as important in the construction and reception of their arguments as their knowledge of scientific facts and principles.

In a society in which expertise becomes increasingly specialized, we need to understand how to manage gaps in knowledge between experts in various fields and between experts and the public in general. That need is especially great in the public sphere, where technical understanding and lived experience do not always align. This study attempts to model the process by which discipline-specific topoi filter into common knowledge and general topoi are acknowledged by experts. It first addresses the issue of expertise in complex rhetorical places, then employs Michel Meyer's reinterpretation of ethos, pathos, and logos to show how experts and non-experts in such places negotiate rhetorical relationships. The study then explores the social and rhetorical mechanisms by which ideas become commonplaces, building on the established theory of symbolic convergence. Finally, the study demonstrates proof in principle with a brief analysis of one topos in the Reports of the Immigration Commission (1911).

Within a Technical Communication classroom, policywork has been used to teach students the vital discursive and conceptual skills valued by technical fields. However, given the move of technical communicators into the public sphere, these skills can and should be expanded to include diverse practices and modes of thought. As such, this article suggests that storytelling can be used as a pedagogical tool to help students think more critically about the (sometimes hidden) relationships that policywork inheres. This article articulates relational work as a target skills set for students and suggests specific activities and handouts for developing these skills.

The International Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge, recently established by the National Science Foundation (NSF), is an alleged attempt at public outreach. The NSF encourages scientists to submit visualizations that would appeal to non-expert audiences by displaying their work in an annual “special feature” in Science magazine, and each year they present the winning image on the cover of Science as the ultimate reward. Although the NSF advertizes the competition as an attempt to educate non-scientists, the visualizations lack sufficient textual explanation in the Science special feature articles and do not demonstrate clear significance for current issues in science. This article assesses the actual motivations behind the NSF's “Visualization Challenge,” given the lack of accompanying textual information, and it explores the consequences of allowing “scientific” visualizations to float into the public sphere unexplained. It will be shown that the spirit of this competition exemplifies the current shift from “public understanding of science” to “public appreciation of science” in the growing field of Science Communication, particularly through the technique of “framing” devices. This shift in objective, accentuated in the realm of visual communication, reinforces the public's view of science as a mythic authority.

The nuclear power industry is undergoing a renaissance, led by initiatives from the Obama administration and several states. In light of this development and the growing information economy, it is crucial that the public be well-informed, effective, and responsible regarding important technological issues. For this reason, undergraduate education, whether for technical or non-technical majors, must include an awareness of the complexity, ambiguity, and interestedness of the use of technical language and information. This is particularly important in communication involving public discourse and perceptions. I discuss here how I foster such awareness in my junior-level technical writing course for non-majors. We focus on the concept “safe” in relation to radiation and nuclear power. This is done in the overall context of making a recommendation for nuclear power as an energy source for the state of Florida for the next two decades, a realistic and urgent technical communication situation. Students see that standards and even the definitions of crucial terms shift depending on context and social circumstances, and that real-world choices involve trade-offs and balances between advantages and disadvantages.

This article uses theories of space and findability to analyze a public information center as an example of multi-modal risk communication. The Yucca Mountain Information Center is an informational space created by the Department of Energy to inform the public about the proposed nuclear waste repository planned for Yucca Mountain, Nevada. As a public space, the Center uses fact sheets, posters, and three-dimensional displays to make arguments about the storage of nuclear waste; we argue that the physical space, text, displays, and online space are all elements of risk communication. We offer a new way to read these elements of risk communication and suggest potential opportunities for public agency.

This article explores the basis of the public debate between Darwinian evolution and creationism. Using dramatic analysis, we show that the source for the debate is due to what we call “Darwin's Dilemma,” which is found in Darwin's Origin of Species. In the Origin, Darwin extends the mechanistic metaphor featured in Enlightenment science by devising the concept of “natural selection.” In the process, however, he also ascribes a motive to nature, which moves his theory outside the boundaries of Enlightenment science. We show that he is aware of this dilemma in his theory, and that he tries to pass it off as a metaphorical maneuver for the sake of brevity. Darwin's inability to resolve this dilemma, however, opens the door for purveyors of creationism and intelligent design. Indeed, much of the debate today over Darwinian evolution still pivots on our inability to come to terms with Darwin's dilemma.

After World War II, the United States government and citizenry were concerned with truth, propaganda, democracy, and national security as they entered the Cold War era. This was a time when technocrats, engineers, and scientists could lead our free-world government through the perils of our tense relationships with Russia, Red China, and Korea. In the early 1940s, Rudolf Flesch began developing what he termed a “scientific rhetoric” to help writers of functional documents more effectively communicate technical information to a general public. He came up with a readability formula to help writers evaluate whether their writing was effective and this readability formula has profoundly shaped notions of “clear writing” for the last 60 years. This article explores Flesch's development of this readability formula, placing his work in a historical context, as well as discussing how the readability formula fit into a larger project to make effective writing more of a science than an art.

Augustus is often described as the emperor who transformed Rome from a city of brick to a city of marble. When he returned victorious to Rome in BCE 29, Augustus embarked on a project to rebuild Rome with the splendor its new imperial status demanded. Despite the tranquility and prosperity enjoyed by most Romans during the Early Empire, many also felt a sense of loss. Much had changed in their social order at the end of the Republic. The nobility and the lower classes began to share more interests and Roman society took on a more egalitarian and commercial nature. Under Emperor Augustus, the function of rhetoric was stripped from legislative arenas and confined mainly to legal courts and ceremonial competitions. In the spirit of renewed patriotism and pragmatism, principles of rhetoric were also applied to writing about technical subjects, such as engineering and architecture. Both Vitruvius and Cicero used his writing to persuade Roman citizens to reclaim their heritage: of building arts in Vitruvius' case; of philosophy and meaningful public oratory in Cicero's case.

The role of literary and rhetorical tropes in scientific discourse is frequently overlooked, largely because “rhetoric” and “science” seem to be incompatible modes of expression. However, if we look closely at scientific explanations—especially those designed to inform a general public—we find that they are as reliant on, if not more so, than more “subjective” forms of public discourse. In A Grammar of Motive, Kenneth Burke posits that all forms of discourse rely heavily on the “four master tropes” of metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony to express ideas, and science is not an exception. This article outlines the processes behind the four master tropes and demonstrates instances where these tropes occur in the expression of scientific concepts found in such fields as biology, physics, and even mathematics. The purpose is to show that, contrary to what many members of the scientific (and lay) community suppose, rhetorical and literary tropes are necessary components to a linguistic understanding of complex scientific concepts; that such tropes do not hinder our understanding, but are in fact necessary to it.

In 1994, the Chicago Tribune announced in a blaring page-one story that fraud had been discovered in an important nine-year-old medical study which compared two treatments for early-stage breast cancer. The study had assured women that lumpectomy plus radiation was as safe as the more invasive mastectomy procedure for early-stage breast cancer; however, the revelation of fraud called these results into question. We examine the reactions of two professional medical journals to demonstrate how negotiations for upholding ethical norms in science took place within the pages of these publications. Then, we analyze the public discourse surrounding the fraud and show that much of the coverage was devoted to scandal. Both forums missed opportunities: professional journals ignored a chance to explore the blurry boundary between “writing up” and “making up” results that all scientists must negotiate in interpreting and publicizing data, while public discourse neglected women affected by the fraud.

Graduate engineers in the United Kingdom are frequently criticized for lacking communication skills. In undergraduate courses, such as civil engineering, which are mathematically and technically oriented, it is very difficult to find space within a full timetable for the development of communication skills. At Aston University this work has been integrated successfully into a course on Public Sector Planning. Lectures are complemented by a project which culminates in the students participating in a simulated Public Inquiry—part of the planning process intended to provide a forum for public debate. Not only do the students learn about the planning process, tangible and intangible aspects of a water resource development, but at the same time develop their written, oral, and decision-making skills.

To teach an in-house public speaking course, the instructor defined the purposes of the course to: 1) make available the training in the skills needed to make an effective presentation, 2) select the effective visual aids to be used in the presentation, 3) learn effective techniques of body language, 4) organize facts and ideas for the presentation, 5) construct the presentation for maximum impact, 6) analyze an audience, 7) establish rapport with the audience and keep its attention, and 8) improve speech, gestures, delivery, and timing. In addition, the instructor must consider the following aspects of the course: the schedule, the size of the class, the number of sessions, the texts, the methods of instruction, and the evaluation of the course. Included are the course of study and the assignments.

Many current teaching practices in undergraduate technical communications are insensitive to students' career needs because they are based on mistaken notions concerning writing and the process of communication. The specific problem areas in current teaching practices include: the lack of emphasis on rewriting and on the cooperative element of technical communication, the overreliance on proscriptive strictures in graphics instruction, and the undue emphasis on large-group oratory in oral communications. Academic teaching methods need to be better informed by the practices and procedures of professional technical communicators in order to correct their mistaken notions and to more effectively meet students' career needs.

In our efforts to more effectively communicate, the Freudian slip is one phenomenon that frequently reminds us that we are imperfect communicators. We don't always mean what we say or say what we mean. This paper is a sequel to “An Analysis of the Freudian Slip and Errors in Speech Communication,” which appeared in the October, 1972, issue of this journal. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the occurrence of the Freudian slip in reading and writing.

The Freudian slip is a common, yet little understood, phenomenon of speech communication. Though we can usually identify a slip easily, most of us are unfamiliar with how, why, and where the slip occurs. In all of his writings Freud never addressed himself to the Freduian slip per se. It is the Freudian account of id drive, however, that allows us to establish a working definition of the Freudian slip and investigate the differences between the slip and errors in speech. The central purpose of this article is to attempt to formulate a theory of the Freudian slip and speech errors in the context of the information theory model.