Science,Technology,& Human Values

This article examines the role of the Cambridge Experimentation Review Board (CERB) in the seven-month moratorium (July 1976-February 1977) on recombinant DNA research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The article focuses on CERB's 23 November 1976 debate, which was the turning point in the committee's proceedings. Although CERB members were implicitly charged with making rational decisions, they were inevitably influenced by biases and emotions. In the process of justifying their decisions, however, they were almost exclusively concerned with appeals to reason. This article argues that appeals to emotion and authority are essential and inevitable components of reasonable (though not rational) decision making. It further argues that legitimizing these appeals in the process of justification will make such appeals more accessible to criticism during the process of construction and, thereby, will help us to define which appeals to emotion and authority are appropriate and which are inappropriate in any given context.

Archaeologists have long disagreed about when and how humans first migrated into the Americas; a point particularly in contention is whether there is any convincing evidence of human occupation earlier than about 12,000 years ago. This article ex amines some recent publications on the controversy, selected especially from review articles and from a recent series, written by professional archaeologists, that appeared in a popular magazine, Natural History. The sample texts are analyzed from a rhetorical perspective with emphasis on textual features such as word choice, hedging, arrange ment, self-reference, argumentative topic, and figure. Such features are taken to be signs of the writer's accommodation to audience and situation as determined in part by the place of publication. The analysis reveals some of the rich variety of persuasive techniques employed in popular and review publications by scientists who find themselves in a disciplinary stalemate, for example, the attempt of each side to depict itself as in the minority. The well-crafied popular pieces also use explicit appeals left only im plicit in the review articles; for example, the popular pieces describe the writer's status based on years of experience and support conclusions by narrating the long process of inquiry followed before a verdict was reached.