In both Specter's "The Deadliest Virus" and Weinberg's "The Crisis of Big Science," the authors used policies set in place by government as a method of persuasion. This was fascinating to me as most scientists I know think that the science they work on is in and of itself significant enough to create persuadable interest. In regard to "Th Crisis of Big Science," Weinberg is obviously bitter about the funding cut that the SSC took. In order to convey this distaste to his audience, he argues that "What motivates legislators is the immediate economic interests of their constituents. Big laboratories bring jobs and money into their neighborhood, so they attract the active support of legislators form that state, and the apathy or hostility from many other members of Congress" (234). Understandably, this is true. As a society, we are far more concerned with the immediate impact of a policy change. The long history of humans learning about the laws of nature isn't immediately beneficial to society, so why care about it?
Similarly, "The Deadliest Virus" talks about a topic which creates a sense of fear in it's audience. No one wants to hear about the 60% death rate of Avian flu, so we should just push it to the back corner and not talk about it until it's threat is immediate. We can see how this problem creates issues when epidemics DO break out in the areas currently affected by Ebola. For decades, ebola has just been a speck on our radar. It was something you read about in text books to learn about hemmhoragic fever. Funding for research on the virus was low because there was more need for funds elsewhere. When the virus did break out, we had nothing but a limited number of vials of an antiviral that was still in experimental phases.
Both of these articles made specific moves which I found interesting, but also seemingly obvious: When you are writing about something seemingly dull, connect it to home. Make your writing make people worry, or thing, or question what they already know. This move was effective in making these articles interesting and captivating. I'm still not all that concerned about contracting Ebola, but I'm more aware of how immediate dangers or threats motivate an audience.
You made a really interesting connection between those two articles that I hadn't really considered. I have to say I was relieved when Weinberg admitted that there are projects that are more worthy of funding than a particle accelerator. If the point of his article would have been to argue that the particle accelerator was the best use of tax money, (as it seemed it might have been) he would have failed miserably. Instead, he pulled the old "we need to increase taxes" card instead, which many people would also be unhappy with. This problem of funding is very intriguing, and I enjoyed our class discussion yesterday about the distribution of societal goods. I'm not sure what I think of it yet.
ReplyDelete