Our first reading is Randy Moore’s “Writing about Biology: How Rhetorical Choices Can Influence the Impact of a Scientific Paper” from Bioscene (2000). You should write a meaningful response that is ~250 words. You might find answering one of the following questions helpful in shaping your response:
- Moore lists a number of reasons why Avery et al’s paper wasn’t as rhetorically sound as Watson and Crick. What are they? Which do you think is the most important to keep in mind when writing? Why?
- In their conclusion, Moore states, “Scientists must do more than present data and facts; rather, scientists must persuade others by making effective arguments” (p. 25). What do you think of this claim? How does this square with what you’ve learned about writing up to this point?
- Have you read Watson and Crick’s (1953) “Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for DNA“? What do think of the article’s tone and style? Why is it so compelling rhetorically?