Since its release in late 2022, ChatGPT and subsequent generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools have raised a wide variety of questions and concerns for the field of technical communication: How will these tools be incorporated into professional settings? How might we appropriately integrate these tools into our research and teaching? In this review, we examine research published in 2023–2024 addressing these questions ( N = 28). Overall, we find preliminary evidence that GAI tools can positively impact student writing and assessment; they also have the potential to assist with some aspects of academic and medical research and writing. However, there are concerns about their reliability and the ethical conundrums raised when they are used inappropriately or when their outputs cannot be distinguished from humans. More research is needed for evidence-based teaching and research strategies as well as policies guiding ethical use. We offer suggestions for new research avenues and methods.

This introductory article examines the evolving landscape of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools, contextualizing their impact through historical tropes of automation as both helper and threat. The authors argue that GAI tools are neither sentient helpers nor existential threats but complex systems that require careful integration into educational and research settings. The article underscores the importance of nuanced, evidence-based approaches, advocating for a balanced understanding of GAI's potential and limitations. It emphasizes ethical considerations and promotes reflective adoption over reactionary measures.

In a scientific dispute over the effects of atrazine on amphibians, chemical industry–funded and publically funded scientists present stunningly contrasting constructions of atrazine's environmental concentrations, persistence, and potential to harm. Considerable scientific uncertainties and variable ranges allow authors to construct preferred versions of the story of atrazine. These incommensurate rhetorical constructions, more the result of competing economic and environmental interests than of any paradigmatic misalignments, have prolonged the dispute not only over atrazine's effects but also over whether its sales should be banned.

In the field that investigates infectious brain diseases such as mad cow disease, the verbal and visual packaging of scientific visuals associated with identifying the agent, prion, its processes, and structure served the community ritual of establishing belief in a highly unorthodox phenomenon. Visual promotion fed into cultural expectations of single agents and simple processes, even though the actual agency and disease process have proven highly complex and perhaps unknowable.

This selection unpacks scientific prose and claim substantiation for Nobel Prize winner, Stan Prusiner, in the transmissible spongiform encephlopathies field (i.e., mad cow disease). Applying linguistic strategies such as M. A. K. Halliday's "favorite clause type," the author examines argumentative strategies in dense scientific prose both in bold and cautious rhetorical styles and invented lexical changes in new scientific development.

This article examines the experiences and rhetorical actions of key medical scientists and physicians who have treated, studied, and written about Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome since the beginning of the epidemic. Those first to describe the disease report that the rhetorical challenge was convincing their audience to accept the novel idea of acquired immune deficiency and to see the cases they described as an emerging medical catastrophe. The biological, social, and linguistic complications of AIDS and the failure of traditional treatments forced the professionals interviewed to develop new care practices such as more horizontal communication with patients and a holistic view of a patient's needs. Responding to the need to educate and persuade peers and the public about appropriate actions in treating and preventing the disease, these professionals participated in rhetorical action that negotiated between “old” practices and attitudes and “new” problems that required changes in practice and attitudes.

Communication at a Distance: The Influence of Print on Sociological Organization and Change1y. David S. Kaufer and Kathleen M. Carley. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993. 474 pp. Writing and Reading Mental Health Records. John F. Reynolds, David C. Mair, and Pamela C. Fischer. Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage, 1992. 109 pp. Designing, Writing, and Producing Computer Documentation. Lynn Denton and Jody Kelly. New York: McGraw, 1992. 258 pp. Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspectives. Rachel Spilka, ed. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois UP, 1993. 332 pp. *

(1992). Owning a virus: The rhetoric of scientific discovery accounts. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 321-336.

In the first three medical reports on AIDS which were published in 1981 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the writers' primary rhetorical agenda was to argue that a new medical discovery had been made. A secondary agenda was to offer etiological explanations for the new problem. To establish the new disease entity as deserving serious attention, the writers built a sense of mystery by confronting established medical knowledge about immunodeficiency and emphasizing the inability of modern medicine to diagnose and treat the problem. When they explained the phenomenon in etiological terms, rather than confronting the disciplinary matrix, the writers relied on established medical knowledge of infection rates in homosexual males as well as prevailing social views about the dangerous nature of male homosexual activity; consequently, they were able to imply that nothing was mysterious or surprising about immunodeficiency in homosexual males.