Writing on Science and Society:

A PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO SCIENTIFIC and LAY ARGUMENT

WRTG 3030, sections 015 and 017, Fall 2009

INSTRUCTOR AND CONTACT INFORMATION

Instructor: Don Wilkerson

Office: Temp Building #1, Rm. 202
Office Hours: T 4:45-5:15; W 12:30-2:00; TH 12-1:00 Office Phone: 303-492-3606 (rely on email) / E-Mail:
CU Writing Center Information:
COURSE DESCRIPTION
Our goal is to write just one logically coherent and rhetorically appropriate paper or proposal. All other assignments will, in one way or another, help you achieve that goal. We will read a number of brief essays on the nature of pragmatic argument and discuss how pragmatic considerations inform a variety of genres relevant to writing on and in the sciences. I will give you models of the following genres:
  • Essays written for a general audience on issues relevant to science, technology and public policy;
  • Post-UROP (Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program) papers written in journal article format;
  • Preliminary drafts of honors theses;
  • UROP grant proposals, Capstone proposals and other types of research grant proposals;
  • Business proposals written by engineering students;
  • Curriculum reform proposals directed to the College of Engineering.
Those of you who have research ideas and active sponsorship from the science or engineering faculty may chose to write a grant proposal, scientific paper or a draft of an honors thesis. If you do not have an established mentoring relationship with science or engineering faculty, you will write an essay on public policy related to science and technology, a business proposal or curriculum reform proposal.
Early in the semester, you will decide which type of essay or proposal you want to write, and you will start doing library research in preparation for it. Later in the semester you will hand in an annotated bibliography and begin drafting the paper or proposal. You will write three preliminary drafts and one final draft of your paper or proposal. Your classmates will comment on each draft, orally and in writing. You, in turn, will comment on your classmates’ work. Such commentary will force you to consider the unique rhetorical demands of each genre listed above.
During the first half of the semester, while you are doing your preliminary research for your major term project, you will write a brief essay patterned after the MCAT writing test. Through the MCAT paper you will learn how to write a clear sentence, a coherent paragraph and make effective transitions between paragraphs. You will also learn how to define terms, clarify unstated assumptions, present evidence in support of an assertion, and respond to counter arguments and objections. You will write two preliminary drafts and one final draft of the MCAT paper. Some students will critique your draft in class; others will critique it in writing. The MCAT papers will cover a wide range of topics: the social effects of technology, the ethical implications of scientific research, the nature of creativity in science and engineering, the nature of truth in science, the ethical obligations of a professional, the rights and duties of a citizen, and the nature of leadership. I will not lecture on these topics. Instead, your paper will teach the entire class a lesson on the topic you choose.
Through the MCAT exercise, you will learn how to structure an argument and how to critique one. You will then apply these skills to your major term project and to your commentary on other students’ projects.
COURSE OBJECTIVES
This course is designed to introduce you to the distinct rhetorical demands of science writing for both specialized and general audiences. The course is also designed to help you adapt scientific writing to a business or institutional audience. In addition, the course will introduce you to a writing process that can be used for any writing project. The specific goals of this course can be sub-divided into several categories:
Rhetorical Knowledge:
  • Understand how situational contexts, assumed background knowledge and other contextual factors inform both the content and structure of a document.
  • Understand writing as a technology that sometimes constitutes reality and does not merely reflect it.
  • Understand that all communication, and specifically analytical writing, is a cooperative act between the writer and his or her audience.
  • Learn how to calculate the expectations and relative expertise of your likely audience.
  • Understand how to position your writing within the current knowledge of a field.
  • Learn how to emphasize the novelty of your ideas within a given field.
  • Enhance your understanding of the formal elements of a research article or a scientific grant proposal.
  • Refine your skills in presenting scientific and technical principles and analyses in terms that a non-scientist can understand.
  • Understand how to weigh and employ common rhetorical appeals in both scientific and lay arguments.
  • Refine your skills in crafting an introduction that focuses the reader’s attention on the issue at hand and the purpose of your essay.
  • Understand the paragraph form as the basic unit of composition and verbal reasoning.
  • Refine your skills in crafting a conclusion that places your specific argument in a broader social or intellectual context.
  • Acquire a “tool kit” of rhetorical terms that will allow you to speak intelligently about the aims and strategies of your paper and the aims and strategies of the papers that you critique.
  • Appreciate writing as tool for building consensus within an informed community.
Critical Reading and Thinking:
  • Recognize and evaluate a statement of brute fact, of institutional fact, of arguable opinion, of taste and of dogma.
  • Understand the common types of evidence in an argument.
  • Understand how unstated assumptions can undermine the validity of an argument.
  • Refine your ability to state a defensible analytical or argumentative thesis.
  • Explore advanced means of defending and developing the thesis over the course of a 7-12 page essay.
  • Review how to summarize a counter-argument or objection fairly and sympathetically.
  • Learn how to analyze and refute an argument by addressing the validity of its claims, evidence, and unstated assumptions.
  • Understand how to evaluate the validity, relevance and credibility of academic and non-academic sources in both print and electronic formats.
  • Understand how researchers interpret scientific literature as a justification for their hypothesis and in defense of their interpretation of their results.
Social and Professional Context:
  • Understand the ethical responsibilities of a professional.
  • Understand that science and technology are always developed within a political context.
  • Understand that scientists and engineers perform a valuable public service when they add their expertise to public policy debate.
  • Understand how the conventions of political argument influence public policy related to science and technology.
  • Understand how “groupthink” can influence organizational decision making and public policy debate.
  • Understand the basic conventions of academic peer review and how they differ from the conventions of journalism and think tank advocacy.
Writing Process:
  • Learn how to brainstorm ideas for an essay by evaluating your personal interests and knowledge, and by consulting with your peers, professors and other relevant professionals.
  • Understand the importance of actively pursuing sources and arguments that are counter to your case.
  • Understand the recursive nature of revision.
  • Learn how to refine and focus your ideas through the practice of revision.
  • Learn how to present purposeful, direct and tactful oral critiques of your peers’ writing.
Writing Conventions:
  • Refine your ability to write simple, clear, economical prose.
  • Learn how to quote, paraphrase and cite sources according to discipline-specific conventions
  • Understand the specific formal elements of a wide range of general and discipline-specific genres

WORKSHOP Format
This course is a writing workshop. Much of our class time will be spent analyzing and discussing your essays. Every third class period you will post a draft of your work on the CU-Learn website for this course ( Your classmates will download a copy of the draft. Some will insert written commentary into your draft and repost the document on the website. Others will be prepared to offer an oral critique of your work in class. On some days the entire class will discuss your paper; on other days your paper will be discussed in a small group of 6-9 students. The workshop method is designed to:
  • Teach you how to analyze and critique the work of others;
  • Give you direct audience response so that you can develop a realistic sense of the diverse interests and expectations of your audience;
  • Teach you that writing is never a solitary act, but an ongoing dialogue with your collaborators, critics and the wider culture;
  • Provide you with a method for drafting and revising your essays in your other courses and in your future careers.
You are expected to write multiple drafts of each essay. Each draft should be presented as if it were a final draft. Each draft must be typed, double-spaced and turned in on time. Late drafts are not accepted. I will comment either in writing or in discussion on each draft. I will grade the final draft only.
ASSIGNMENTS and ASSIGNMENT VALUES
  • 2-4 page graded response to a standardized test question similar to the MCAT writing test (25%)
  • 7-12 page graded argumentative essay, research proposal, product proposal or policy proposal on a topic of your choice (40%)
  • Un-graded writing assignments over the course of the semester, including a response to an ethics scenario, a research prospectus, an annotated bibliography, worksheets and brief written responses to the readings (10%)
  • Daily oral critiques and weekly written critiques of your classmates’ writing; oral presentations on readings (25%)
Additional Requirement: Regular participation in class discussion of readings and model texts. Lack of substantive daily class participation will result in a full letter grade penalty.

DUE DATES (Subject to Change at My Discretion)

  • 8/26 - Response to an Ethics Scenario
  • 9/14 – Article Summary and Oral Presentation
  • 10/9- Research Prospectus for Paper #2 (electronic Friday posting)
  • 10/23- Final Draft of Paper #1 - MCAT Response (electronic Friday posting)
  • 10/30 -Annotated Bibliography (electronic Friday posting)
  • 12/17– Final Draft ofPaper #2 – Major Term Project
  • Daily Oral Critiques and Weekly Written Critiques of Student Writing; Occasional worksheets and brief written responses to readings

Texts
Course readings will be available through the CU-Learn website. (I will also sometimes email readings, hand out packets or refer you to relevant web sites.) Under the Course Content link on the left-hand menu, you will find several folders with a diverse range of readings—essays on rhetoric; background readings on science, ethics and public policy; model student essays; readings on style, mechanics and proper citation form; and other relevant topics. You can also find hyperlinks to a variety of useful guides and resources at: The schedule below contains the specific readings for the course. Don’t panic if some of the readings seem long. You may have four readings on a given day, but many of the essays will be as short as 2-5 pages.
In addition, I would like you to buy a copy of They Say, I Say, by Graff and Birkenstein, available at the CU Bookstore.
PROVISIONAL Schedule (Subject to Change at My Discretion)
The readings below can be found on the CU Learn website for this course unless otherwise noted in the schedule. Each day’s schedule is subdivided into Reading, Discussion, Writing and Written Peer Review assignments. The boxes below are designed to give you a general outline of the assignments and its rationale based on the goals of the course. You should expect some small changes to individual assignments and the sequence of assignments. I will send out emails on a weekly basis that will remind you of the assignments and inform you of any changes to the schedule or the content of the assignments. Typically, the emails will also contain a more detailed set of discussion questions than the ones you find below.
Week 1: Monday 8/24 / Wednesday 8/26
Course Introduction /
Ethics and Ethos
Discussion: Course Syllabus and Objectives / Readings:
Social and Professional Context:
1.)Student Whistle Blower Scenario - Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (handout from Mon)
2.)“Rights, Duties and Responsibilities” - Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
3.)“Guide to Moral Decision Making”—Chris MacDonald
4.)NSPE Code of Ethics for Professional Engineers
5.)“Professionalism” at
Rhetorical Knowledge:
6.) Silva Rhetoricae , an online encyclopedia of classical rhetoric at Read the links entitled “What is Rhetoric?” “Persuasive Appeals,” “Logos,” “Pathos” and “Ethos”
Writing: 2-3 page response to the Student Whistle Blower Scenario in drawing upon the above readings. Should the student appeal to the business owner or go to the EPA? In either case, what sorts of rhetorical appeals should he employ?
Discussion: Full class discussion of the scenario and your specific strategies in structuring your written response.
Week 2: Monday 8/31 / Wednesday 9/2
Facts, Inferences, Speech Acts / Writing on Science and Public Policy for a General Audience (Model Student Essays for Your Term Projects)
Readings:
Rhetorical Knowledge; Critical Reading and Thinking:
1.)“Speech Acts” – Joan Cutting (pp 13-19 of Pragmatics and Discourse)
2.)“Clarifying Speech Act Theory: How Language Regulates, Constitutes and Reflects Reality” - Wilkerson
3.)Brief selections from The Construction of Social Reality pp.27-29 on brute and institutional facts; 93-94; 100-101on the theory of rights – John Searle
4.)“Facts, Opinions, Value Judgments and Writing as a Collaborative Act” -- Donald Wilkerson
5.) “Facts and Opinions Discussion Assignment” – Wilkerson
Discussion: Be prepared to discuss the 18 statements in the Facts and Opinions discussion Assignment in light of the above readings. Tell me whether the phrasing of the statement makes it a brute fact, an institutional fact, a defensible inference, an indefensible assertion, or a statement of dogma. Revise the indefensible assertions so that they are defensible.
Writing: I will send out an email that assigns one statement to each student. Write a one-paragraph analysis of it according to the questions contained in #5 above. You will also lead class discussion of the statement. / Readings:
Rhetorical Knowledge:
1.)“Argument as Reasoned Dialogue”– Douglas Walton (pp. 1-10 of Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach)
2.)“Grice’s Conversational Maxims” – brief excerpts from Cutting, Sperber and Wilson and others compiled by Wilkerson
Critical Reading and Thinking (model student essays):
3.)“Why Adult Stem Cells Are Not Sufficient” – Adam Mitchell (The Mitchell essay includes annotations that explain the essay’s form and strategies in terms that we discussed during our two last classes.)
4.) “Sallie Baliunas, the Global Warming Debate, and Think Tank Scholarship” – Olivia Koski
5.) “New Course Proposal: ECEN1000” – Stephen Karcher
6.)“Auto Shade Business Proposal” – Kara McMIllen
7.)Over the course of the next two weeks, browse the other 15 model student essays and business/curriculum proposals on our CU-Learn site. Many are annotated with commentary about their structure and rhetorical strategies.
Discussion:
1.)We will complete our discussion of the Facts and Opinions statements from last time.
2.)Be prepared to analyze the main assertions of each model student essay in light of our discussions.
3.)Identify the strongest and weakest aspects of each model student essay.
Week 3: Monday / Wednesday 9/9
The Writing Process: How to Brainstorm Topics for Your Term Projects (Conventional Essay)
Labor Day
Holiday / Readings:
Writing Process:
1.)“Assignment Sheet for Your Major Projects”
2.) “Bioterrorism and Science: The Censorship of Scientific Journals Will Do More Harm than Good” – Ryan Nielsen
3.)Model Prospectus Worksheet for “Bioterrrorism and Science”
4.)Model Prospectus and intro for “Unapproved and Unregulated: Dissolving Body Fat in America” —Ashley Moore
5.)Model Prospectus and intro for “The Gene Patenting Controversy” – Suzanna Fiala
6.)Model Prospectus Worksheet for the Margaret Boyle essay we read last time
Discussion:
1.)Come in with questions about the Assignment Sheet and the various brainstorming recommendations within it.
2.)Note the differences between the various papers and the prospectuses for them.
Writing: There is no writing assignment for today. Your prospectus worksheet will be due during week seven (see below).
Week 4: Monday 9/14 / Wednesday 9/16
How Academic and Think Tank Scholarship Influences Public Policy / Science Writing for a Specialized Audience
(Model Proposals and Scientific Papers)
Readings:
Social and Professional Context:
1.)“How to Write a Summary” Wilkerson
2.)“The Punditocracy Four: Experts and the World of Ideas” – Eric Alterman (from What Liberal Media?)
3.)“TV, Money and “Crossfire’ Politics” – Fareed Zakaria
4.)“Group Think Overview” –multiple sources
5.)“Liberal Group Think in the Universities” – Mark Bauerlein
6.)“Taking the Spin Out of Science” –Alan Sokal and Chris Mooney
7.)“Political Interference with Science is Real and Troubling” – Tom Yulsman
8.)“Science and the Media”- Paul Offit
9.)“Science and Society” – Paul Offit
10.)“Three Myths about Scientific Peer Review” – Michael Neilsen
11.)“Indicators of Long Term Health Risks” Pamela Ronald (From Tomorrow’s Table)
Writing Process:
12.)The intro section of“Trans Fats: How Two Think Tank Advocates Misrepresent the Relevant Science – Jim Margolis
13.)Re-read the first three paragraphs of Koski’s essay from last week.
Oral Presentations:
1.)I will send out an email that assigns one or two people to each of the above essays. Be prepared to give a 5-7 minute summary to the entire class on the essay or essays next to your name. I will also send out a set of questions that direct your attention to how Koski, Margolis and other students have used today’s reading to brainstorm ideas for their major projects.
Writing :
2.)Everyone will write a one page summary of their assigned document.
3.)Everyone will write a one page summary of the Alterman reading, regardless of whether or not they have been assigned to lead a discussion on it. / Readings: