The Dark Side Of Science Rhetorical Analysis

Scientific innovation is highly praised in society, as it results in useful inventions, medicinal cures, improved lifestyles, and social advancements. However, scientific philosopher, Heather Douglas attempts to counter this idea by indicating its negative impacts, in her article “The Dark Side of Science.” The article was first publicized in a scientific magazine, entitled The Scientist. It highlights Douglas’ biased conception of scientists’ direct affiliation with the foreseeable negative effects of their works. She conscientiously argues that scientists should be held accountable for the unfavorable counterparts of their research. Her evaluative argument assess the morality of scientists by charging them with the responsibility of conforming …show more content…
The foundation of her article is based on artistic logic. She combines deductive reasoning, analogies, and pleas of common sense to promote her claim. She has the advantage of basing her common sense pleas on credibility. The audience is willing to consider her connecting points because they relate to her values. Her pleas are simplistic and are backed by factual evidence. She undercuts the widely accepted belief that scientific innovation is good. She challenges the ethics behind “dark science” through deductive reasoning. This is evident as she declares, “Some have argued that the answer to this question is no—that it is not researcher 's’ responsibility how science gets used in society. But that is sophistry” (Douglas 124). This demonstrates how she condemned a general assumption and capped it with her specified claim. Douglas also uses analogies to further illustrate her point. Her use of analogies exaggerates the audience 's perspective of the situation. This strategic method mildly enhances her claim, but it also cripples it. As one of her analogic examples, she states, “If I were to negligently throw a used match into a dry field (merely because I wanted to dispose of it), for example, I would be responsible for the resulting wildfire” (Douglas 125). This statement serves two purposes; it puts the situation in a different context, making it easier for the audience to understand it, and it over hypes the actual …show more content…
She gains the attention of her audience through the emotional device of fear. She relies on the negative connotations of “dark science,” which poses a great threat. She uses real life examples and practical situations to explore the social imbalance and impact on society. Her philosophical background allowed her to expand in great detail, essentially advocating her claim. In discussion of a practical situation, she suggests, “For example, if it is apparent that knowledge of how to construct smallpox and other pathogens could be used for nefarious purposes, then the scientists who introduced the concept are partially to blame for an attack that could cause countless deaths” (Douglas 125). This is alarming and strikes apprehension within the audience; they are more tolerant to listen and respond accordingly to Douglas, as she commands scientists to take responsibility for their contribution to the frightening