Joo 1 !

Rachel Joo Professor Donald Johnson English 1A 23 March 2014 Writing Assignment 3: Science and Technology Both Jeremy Rifkin and J. Michael Bishop discuss science and technology in their writings Biotech Century: Playing Ecological Roulette with Mother Natures Design and Enemies of Promise. Rifkin discusses the danger of genetically engineered organisms plants and animals that the world faces and Bishop discusses why people have exaggerated expectations about what science can accomplish. (Bishop 307) Although both writings discuss different topics of science, both writers use causal arguments in order to support their point of views. The role that causal arguments play in their writings are different, but similarly significant. A causal argument is a method of argument that hypothesizes a conclusion related to cause-and-effect. The format usually involves two premises that lead to a conclusion. It can be done subtly or very directly, depending on the purpose in which the writer aims for. In Biotech Century, Rifkin uses causal arguments in a very direct manner but, unlike him, in Enemies of Promise, Bishop uses this technique in a subtle manner. Although their writing styles differ greatly, the effect of the causal arguments are immense and help strengthen their arguments. In his writing, Rifkin uses causal arguments to tell the readers of the possible outcomes of biotech engineering. He discusses the commercial outcomes, ecological outcomes and possible disasters that may emerge. He says that one problem with releasing genetically engineered

Joo 2 ! organisms into Earths ecosystem is that they are inherently more unpredictable (Rifkin 313) in the way they merge with the environment they are unleashed upon. The two premises here are the unleashing of genetically engineered organisms into the environment and the unpredictability of their interaction to that environment. Rifkin concludes that this may make it much more difficult to assess all of the potential impacts (Rifkin 313) that this organism might cause in the ecosystem. And also that it may cause an environmental explosion. (Rifkin 313) One thing to note of this form of causal argument is that the conclusion is merely a hypothesis of what may happen. By using words such as may or small change Rifkin makes sure that he can persuade the readers his point of view on the subject without having to state any relative evidence. Rifkin also uses the technique when discussing the outcomes of what may happen if herbicide, pest, and virus resistant plants were to be introduced commercially. He states that ecologists fear that the weeds around the herbicide resistant plants will also be genetically altered to grow a resistance as well. Leading to the conclusion that farmers will use more herbicide thus fowling the soil fertility and water quality of the area, and also killing of beneficial pests that our ecosystem needs. The pest resistant plants may lead to superbugs that grow resistant to the effects of the pesticide inside the plants and the virus resistant plants may lead to the development of viruses that we have never encountered before. (Rifkin 315) Although he uses the somewhat dramatic examples of outcomes that may happen, or not, the technique he uses is very powerful and makes the readers think What if? Unlike Rifkin, Bishop uses the causal arguments in a more subtle manner. He provides the reader of the two premises, but only touches on the conclusion slightly; making the readers

Joo 3 ! come up with the conclusion on their own. Bishop writes, The great successes of science have helped to create the exaggerated expectation about what science can accomplish. (Bishop 307) He concludes that because of this, when scientists fail to meet these exaggerated expectations, they are criticized by those who do not recognize the limits of science. (Bishop 307) Also when giving the example of Lorenzos Oil he does not conclude his causal argument with the conclusion of his two premises. He states that the movie portrays medical scientists as insensitive, close-minded, and self serving, (Bishop 307) and the treatment of Lorenzo as a success, with the heroic parents triumphant over the obstructionism of medical scientists. (Bishop 307) These two premises lead the reader to conclude that the movie was too critical of medical scientists and promoted a miracle cure that was not necessarily approved of. This movie led the public to a more critical view about scientists and what they can and cannot accomplish. Bishop also uses causal arguments to point out that U.S. students are scientifically ignorant. His first premise is the rankings of US high school students in science compared to the rankings of students in other countries. Secondly, he mentions that even scientists themselves are ignorant of different fields of science by asking, Do even we scientists understand one another? (Bishop 308) He provides examples of this ignorance by mentioning anecdotes of twenty-three geophysicists who could not distinguish between DNA and RNA, and of a Nobel Prize-winning chemist who had never heard of plate tectonics. (Bishop 309) With this, Bishop concludes that in order to educate the ignorant public about what science can and cannot accomplish, scientists have to step up to unite themselves first. He wraps up his conclusion with a quote from Gerald Holton, a physicist and historian of science, that says We [scientists]

Joo 4 ! should do what we can, or we shall be pushed out of the common culture. The lab remains our workplace, but it must not become our hiding place. Although Rifkin and Bishop discuss total different aspects of science, they both use the same technique of causal arguments to strengthen their writings. While Rifkin gives the reader a hypothesis of what outcomes may happen if genetically alternated organisms are introduced and Bishop only pushes the reader slightly to his conclusions, both writers uses the technique to their advantage. Causal arguments make the reader come up with conclusions based on the premises given by the writer. In both writings Rifkin and Bishop set conclusions that they want the reader to come up with, because the reader believes it is their own the writers succeed in persuading the reader to agree with them. Rifkin and Bishop both take this to their advantage in Biotech Century and Enemies of Promise.!

Joo 5 ! Work Cited Bishop, J. Michael. "Enemies of Promise." Trans. Array The Presence of Others. . 5th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin, 2008. 304-309. Print. Rifkin, Jeremey. "Biotech Century: Playing Ecological Roulette with Mother Nature's Design." Trans. Array The Presence of Others. . 5th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. 311-319. Print.