Evaluations of Rhetorical Situations

When people think of engineering they sometimes think of bridges or buildings. Little do they know engineering can cover a massive variety of different projects. Lately, I have been covering engineering in genetics. I have also recently highlighted the field in what is known as geoengineering. Geoengineering is the use of engineering to better our world's environment.

But not all see the use of unnatural techniques ethical for use on the natural world. Organizations have sprouted rising against geoengineering as well as against genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, in prominently, food products and even human stem cells.

The debate is heated in these two topics and in the following few paragraphs I will analyze three sources I found covering these subjects. People within the fields have views on the use of the methods.

Gemeinfrei. "natural gas drilling rig on the Pinedale Anticline." 01/14/2007 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication.

Source 1 is an article in The Washington Post written by Brad Plumer. He interviews climate scientist David Keith with the main question in mind, "Should we use geoengineering to cool the Earth?" The article is biased based on Keith's opinions. He supports the methods being used in geoengineering to harness the power of the earth from within the ground. Some people are not at all happy with his views.

Brad Plumer was a reporter at The Washington Post at the time of the article being published covering domestic policy, particularly energy and environmental issues. He is currently the senior editor at Vox.com, where he manages the site's science, energy, and environmental coverage. Plumer currently resides in Washington, D.C. 

The man he interviews is David Keith, a climate scientist. In recent years, he has earned the first prize in Canada's national physics exam as well as being listed in TIME magazine's Heroes of the Environment. He is a professor of applied physics at the Harvard Paulson School and a professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. He is also the president of Carbon Engineering, a company developing technologies for capture of CO2 from the air.

The primary audience for this article is a reader who has an interest in the debate whether geoengineering is a ethical method to solving the world's climate crisis. The article is very biased in that Keith supports the ideas that engineering can have on the earth. Others may disagree with Keith, so they may not be a suitable audience.

Source 2 is an article published by The New York Times. John M. Broder, a NYT writer, published the article in September of 2009 with the title, "A Skeptic Finds Faith in Geoengineering." The article address the issue of global warming and centers around Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish political scientist. He is the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist." He argues his support of the use of geoengineering to alter the climate and to ultimately aid in cooling the planet.

Bjorn Lomburg, as stated, is a Danish political scientist who wrote the book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist." He is the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and a temporary professor at Copenhagen Business School. He was named TIME magazines's 100 most influential people in the world. To add, he is the author of several other books.

The primary audience of this article is for readers to get a sense of what Lomburg thinks. The article does address however the unknown consequences that even Lomburg admits might occur. Readers who already have a stance on the subject might like or dislike the post as Lomburg is biased, but some may actually find his views reasonable.

Source 3 is an article by OuterPlaces.com, a science and technology focused website. Writer Janey Tracey highlights the comparison between genetic engineering and the law. She asks, "Is Genetic Engineering Protected Under the First Amendment?" In her article, she provides information over the subject and also includes quotation boxes all quoted by Alta Charo, a bioethicist.

Alta Charo is also a law professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School. Her quotes provided in the article are taken from her lecture at a DARPA conference. She was also a member of President Obama's transition team where she focused on the FDA, bioethics, stem cell policy, and women's reproductive health. She is an unbiased writer when talking about genetic engineering and provides much information through her article giving facts from both sides of the argument.

The article is aimed at readers who might know small bits of information on the subject of genetic engineering and are wondering the ethical views on it. As the title does refer to the legality of the method, people may want to read into this article to get a feel for what the debate stands for in an overall spectrum.

In reflection, I would consider my sources good. After reviewing Savannah's and Jessica's posts on rhetorical situations, I found that many different genres of writing can work great as rhetoric. From their evaluations, I have now considered that my second source is not much of rhetoric. Although it contains much author opinion, it does not give as much as my other two sources. I would like to point out that my first source on geoengineering and global warming contain the most rhetoric out of the three in that the author writes the dialogue between climate scientist and himself on the situation. I like to consider this source as a great find for myself.