ABSTRACT Anthony Fauci, an infectious disease expert in the White House's coronavirus task force, is challenged to offer responsible public communication of science despite working under a habitual liar who has no tolerance for criticism or dissent. Fauci manages this rhetorical exigence by using strategic ambiguity, the topos of the honest broker, dissociation, and a narrative that constrains executive decision making.

Book Review| June 01 2019 Rethinking Rhetorical Theory, Criticism, and Pedagogy: The Living Art of Michael C. Leff Rethinking Rhetorical Theory, Criticism, and Pedagogy: The Living Art of Michael C. Leff. Edited by Antonio De Velasco, John Angus Campbell, and David Henry. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2016; pp. xxiv + 481. $39.95 paper; $31.95 e-book. Leah Ceccarelli Leah Ceccarelli University of Washington Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2019) 22 (2): 323–326. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.22.2.0323 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Leah Ceccarelli; Rethinking Rhetorical Theory, Criticism, and Pedagogy: The Living Art of Michael C. Leff. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 June 2019; 22 (2): 323–326. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.22.2.0323 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveMichigan State University PressRhetoric and Public Affairs Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2019 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2019 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

AbstractIn this essay, we analyze the public communication debacle before the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake that led to the infamous trial of the “L’Aquila Seven.” Examining the trial transcripts to extract norms regarding the proper role of scientists in society, we conclude that the first verdict interpellated the figure of the responsible scientist citizen who is expected to perform rhetorical citizenship when communicating with a lay public, while the second assumed a distinction between public and technical spheres that absolves scientists from responsibility to their fellow citizens and reduces their role to performance of an expertise divorced from rhetoric. Tracing the civic outcomes of these conflicting norms, we identify three missed opportunities during the prequake discourse in which the scientists failed to correct statements that they, and only they, knew to be flawed. To prevent future communicative debacles that arise from a dangerous separation of scientists and laypeople, we argue that scientists need to come to see themselves as scientist citizens, experts who take on the civic responsibility of clearly communicating their knowledge to their fellow citizens when such sharing is necessary to the public good.

Rhetoricians involved in funded collaborative research with scientists have discussed some of their own rhetorical choices in conveying to their research partners the unique and valuable contributions made by rhetorical inquiry. But different definitions of what expertise is offered by someone trained in rhetoric as a field of study shape their conclusions, as does the fact that most are in the early stages of this collaborative work. They have provided an energetic start to what promises to be a spirited, valuable, and lengthy conversation about how rhetoricians of science might think about the broader impacts of their research.

A review of work being published in our journals establishes that we most often think of ourselves as passive intellectuals, engaged in critical reflection about rhetorics of science and technology. But another persona lurks in that scholarship as well—the rhetorician as agent of change making the world a better place. This paper argues that rhetoricians of science and technology need to think harder about how we take the academic understandings developed in our primary internal discursive genre and transform them into productive engagements with external publics. Whether we encounter those publics in the classroom or in civic forums or in scientific or technical organizations, we need to be able to translate our research findings to these empowered stakeholders in ways that are meaningful and constructive. By sharing best practices for pedagogy and public engagement, rhetoricians of science and technology can improve our chances of making an impact with our research.

This study traces the reception of rhetoric of science work in book reviews by science studies scholars, focusing particularly on critiques of the author's own book by historians of science, to ground recommendations for improving our status in the interdisciplinary conversation. In describing the work of other science studies scholars, rhetoricians of science should acknowledge the rhetorical contributions of nonrhetoricians and negotiate a shared space rather than attempt to fill perceived lacunae in the literature.

This article undertakes a close rhetorical reading of the speeches given by Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Francis Collins, and Craig Venter on June 26, 2000, at the White House ceremony announcing the completion of the Human Genome Project. Specifically, it looks at the metaphors used by each speaker to describe the activity of genomic scientists. Scientific activity regarding the genome was metaphorically compared to such actions as producing a map, opening a frontier, unlocking a vault, drawing a blueprint, reading an instruction manual, and learning a language. This article argues that these metaphors and the way in which they interact with each other can oversimplify the subject matter under discussion and can conflict with the ethical goals that the authors explicitly proclaim. An examination of the interaction between metaphorical vehicles in this particular case study amends some earlier claims that the author made in a theoretical reflection on the problems and the possibilities of mixed metaphors in genomic science.

The Unity of Knowledge seeks to persuade readers to integrate knowledge "from the natural sciences with that of the social sciences and humanities." 1 Wilson's stated intent is to offer the "strongest appeal" for the linkage of the natural sciences with the social sciences and humanities, an appeal based on "the prospect of intellectual adventure and, given even modest success, the value of understanding the human condition with a higher degree of certainty" (WC, 9). He believes that the biological sciences have much to say about the human condition, and that only by breaching "the boundary that separates the natural sciences on one side from the humanities and humanistic social sciences on the other" can we begin to truly understand human social behavior (WC, 125). In short, the connection that links the "deep, mostly genetic history of the species as a whole to the more recent cultural histories of its far-flung societies" is something that should be further explored by scientists willing to cross disciplinary boundaries (WC, 126).

Critics may fail to appreciate the rhetorical significance of scientific texts that do not fit within the dominant genre of truth‐forming argument. Only by identifying Schrödinger's text as inspirational community‐forming discourse do we come to recognize the rhetorical artistry of his negotiation between two audiences, a negotiation that includes a subtle building of common ground, the application of productive ambiguity at a key point of collision, and a skillful _ reversal of language expectations to relocate audience loyalties.