HANDOUT (740 words, 27 Jan 2022)
“Manufactured Scientific Controversy: Science, Rhetoric, and Public Debate”
Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Volume 14, Number 2, Summer 2011, pp.195-228
Leah Ceccarelli, Ph.D.
Dr. Ceccarelli is a professor at the University of Washington in the Department of Communication. She earned her BA at UC Berkeley with a double major in rhetoric and biology. She earned both her MA and PhD at Northwestern University in Communications Studies. Aside from a year as an assistant professor at Penn State in 1995, she’s been at UW her entire career starting in 1996 and became a full professor in 2013. She’s a rhetorical critic and theorist. Her research focuses on interdisciplinary and public discourse about science. She is the author of two books, Shaping Science with Rhetoric and On the Frontier of Science.
Analysis
Using 3 case studies – AIDS dissent, Global Warming Skepticism, and Intelligent Design – Ceccarelli presents how nefarious rhetors create ‘manufactured scientific controversy’ (MSC) by exploiting the public’s ignorance about scientific consensus on these issues. These rhetors lead the public to believe there is much controversy about a scientific issue when there is none/very little. The goal of these rhetors is to promote or delay public policy by presenting an issue as “unsettled” and in need of more study – it’s a delay tactic. As Ceccarelli points out via the existence of “smoking gun” texts, these rhetors know there is scientific consensus and no real controversy. It’s only the public that is unaware and confused.
Ceccarelli’s work is closely related to agnotology, the study of culturally created ignorance. In fact, she references Robert Proctor’s Agnotology book, “strategic ploy” ignorance, and his work investigating Big Tobacco and its fight to perpetuate an MSC regarding cancer and cigarette smoking. Moreover, the case Ceccarelli makes is not much different from the case Proctor established for Big Tobacco years earlier, and her essay would have benefited from a thicker description of agnotology, specifically the three types of ignorance: Native State, Lost Realm, and Strategic Ploy. Where Ceccarelli’s work adds to our understanding of the dynamics of MSC is in the rhetorical response of the scientists she depicts. She shows how MSC rhetors set “rhetorical traps” for scientists who mount “ineffectual counterarguments” that ultimately help the MSC rhetors.
To assist the defenders of science, Ceccarelli advises them to: 1) engage rather than ignore the arguments of MSC rhetors, 2) refute their most damning charges, 3) shift the discussion to the “real controversy” concerning public policy issues, 4) assure the public that there is indeed a scientific consensus, 5) expose the MSC rhetors’ “smoking guns” (their unspoken motivations), and 6) shift the burden of proof to the MSC rhetors.
Ceccarelli is fully aware that her approach to helping scientists is controversial. Some, like sociologist Steve Fuller believe the only approach to science is eternal skepticism. He published a scathing critique of her work to which she replied in a published article using the techniques she proposed (stated in the previous paragraph). I found Fuller’s critique was a textbook example of what I call the rhetoric of Terror Management Theory (TMT) as he used denigration, annihilation, and assimilation rhetoric to attack Ceccarelli in order to defend his Intelligent Design cultural worldview. On the other hand, Ceccarelli used TMT’s accommodation rhetoric in her response to Fuller. This exchange shows that scientific debate is often a proxy for debates and defenses of one’s culture.
Links to Other Readings
Ceccarelli’s work ties most closely with Carl Herndl’s “engaged RSTEM” concept. Ceccarelli provides a cautionary tale about how scientists with the best intentions can “engage” with the public in a wholly counterproductive manner; however, she does provide techniques for them to engage properly, especially when rhetors are actively producing MSCs. Her work is also related to Mike Hulme’s “Why We Disagree About Climate Change” in that there is much more to scientific debates than simply the technical issues. While the debates are related to culture and the future, Ceccarelli reminds us with MSCs that not everyone is going to play fair to “win the future.”
Questions
1) What are the dangers of teaching scientists rhetorical techniques?
2) Should rhetoricians have a code/creed/oath to public welfare like engineers do?
3) When should rhetoricians “disengage” with scientists?
4) What’s the difference between a “healthy skepticism” of science and an “unhealthy skepticism” of science?
5) What are the rhetorician’s obligations to the public? How does it manifest?
PRESENTATION (27 Jan 2022)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
