Antibiotic Resistance: Rhetorical Analysis

Antibiotic resistant bacteria has become the center in a debate over the future of medicine. Resistance to antibiotics threatens the ability to prevent and cure many illnesses caused by bacteria and, if current trends continue diseases that plagued humanity in the past may return to wreak havoc on the human population. Scientists have proposed different ways to combat this issue by either finding ways of preventing the development of resistant bacterial strains or, develop more types of antibiotics as old ones become obsolete. Others are concerned over the consequences antibiotic resistant bacteria can have on the the economy, especially its impact on the health and agriculture industry. This issue is being discussed in a couple of different disciplines which approach the issue in different ways. This can be seen when comparing two articles from different disciplines that are addressing the same issue to two different audiences. The research article “Antibiotic resistance” from the International Journal of Medical Microbiology is written in a high style and, details statistics and mechanics of antibiotic resistance in order to convince a professional audience that proper use of antibiotics can help curb the issue. On the other hand, the finance & development article “Antibiotic Resistance” from the International Monetary Fund uses less complex writing to discuss the economic impact of antibiotic resistance to an audience who would be concerned about the impact on society from these bacteria rather than the details of resistance development and spread. The research article uses statistics and, scientific theory to further its claim over the proper use of antibiotics while the finance and development article cites public health data and, economic consequences to promote increased public investment in antibiotics. Though both articles are discussing possible solutions to the antibiotic issue, the manner in which they approach it, the style of writing and, their potential audiences are significantly different.

The first major difference between these two articles is how they attempt to create a logical argument.. The research article is clearly focusing on a more scientific argument through the use of explicit details. Passages such as “MRSA have acquired resistance to β-lactam antibiotics via transfer of chromosomal cassette elements containing mec genes which obviously have their reservoir in coagulase-negative staphylococci and rapidly evolve by recombination events” describes a scientific mechanism by which particular bacteria acquired resistance to a certain class of antibiotics. Along with passages such as “The proportion of Escherichia coli resistant to third-generation cephalosporins within 6 years only increased from 2% in 2004 to 8.5% in 2011. In more than 90% of these isolates this is obviously based on extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBL)” which uses statistics on resistance cases, the research article clearly shows that it is more focused on the actual science of the issue thus citing more facts and research to support its claim. The finance and development article focuses on a more economic or, social factors to sway the opinions of its audience. It uses language such as “The global burden of resistance is poorly quantified but is likely to be concentrated in three categories: the costs of resistant infections, the costs of antibiotics, and the inability to perform procedures that rely on antibiotics to prevent infection.” to highlight the most important consequences of the issue and, “Resistance-a natural phenomenon-is accelerating because no single patient, physician, hospital, insurer, or pharmaceutical company has an incentive to reduce antibiotic use. Drug costs are reimbursed by health insurers and third-party payers, but infection control is typically uncompensated.” to offer an opinion into the flaws of current health practices. The finance article looks more at the effects on society and, how current practices are to blame for antibiotic resistance but in many instances lacks the hard facts and data to back its claim. Though both are using logos, the type of logos is fundamentally different as the research article relies on facts while the finance article seeks to use its examples to make a logical observation of current practices which makes its assumptions more believable. Even if the overall subject of both articles is similar, they approach their claims in different ways to present a logical case.

While the research article and, the finance article are making an argument over a solution to antibiotic resistant bacteria, the research article is much more focused on its claim when compared to the extent of the issue the finance article covers. The research articles extensive details on the mechanisms of resistance development and, use of statistics over the spread of resistance strains focuses specifically on the proper use of antibiotics to maintain their usefulness. The focus on just the proper use of antibiotics is seen in the concluding sentence of the article: “Without antibiotic use and misuse there is no resistance development: monitoring of consumption at local level in parallel to tight surveillance of resistance is an essential prerequisite to rational use.” The research articles main claim lies in convincing its audience that the solution to the issue is stricter control on the use of antibiotics. The choice to discuss only this aspect is likely due to the specialized nature of the publication which is heavily focused on microbiology. On the contrary, the finance article discusses a broader range of solutions in order to form a more comprehensive way to solve the problem. The line “Conservation is accomplished by reducing the need for antibiotics (through vaccination and infection control) and their unnecessary use.” show it agrees with the research article on the responsible use of antibiotics but, it continues with “Norms that govern physician-patient interactions and patients' expectations drive unnecessary use. Because physicians face no penalty for writing prescriptions for antibiotics and receive no compensation for spending time to explain why they are not necessary, prescription rates remain high.” to bring up social norms that are escalating the issue. It even touches on a completely different solution in a following passage which states “New antibiotics have been developed, but the cost of bringing any new drug to market is very high. The rate at which new antibiotic compounds are being discovered is slowing. Fourteen of the 17 classes of antibiotics in use today were discovered before 1970. Most innovation involves reengineering existing compounds rather than finding new mechanisms.” where the idea of increasing the pool of antibiotics that doctors can use is described. The finance article addresses multiple fronts of the issue in order to describe a comprehensive solution to the problem at hand. It does this to convince the audience that “Public investment in antibiotics is justified because the lack of effective drugs can create public health emergencies.” The difference of the scope of the articles can be attributed to how they are trying to find a solution to the problem; the research article sets its sight on a well reasoned scientific argument over the misuse of antibiotics while the finance article hope to detail an overall change in policy on how the issue can be tackled.

The research article and the finance article are each written in a style that suits their overall purpose. The research article make extensive use of a passive voice such as in “Besides antibiotics, heavy metal ions, such as copper and zinc, were used in the past as feed additives in a range of concentrations which select for resistance.” which is common for scientific writing. The article is written mostly in third person but, does not hesitate to switch into first person plural for a few short sections such as “We have learned about the evolution and clonal dissemination of particularly resistant strains, and on the structure of mobile genetic elements containing resistance genes.” and “We have learned that antibiotic resistance is natural, and that for particular groups of antibiotics and species of pathogens intrinsic resistance is bound to occur.” The use of the first person plural is used to emphasize a few of the recognized facts that serve as a basis for the authors argument and, to make a sort of connection with the reader. The finance article make use of the active voice much more as can be seen from the excerpt “The United States and Europe are encouraging the development of new drugs.” The use of active voice makes the writing much more concise than a passive voice making it easier for the reader to read. The entire article is written in the third person which gives it an objective tone that might be better suited towards making a case for itself. Both articles are able to make use of styles to improve the effectiveness of their writing.

The language used in each of the articles hints at the kind of audience they are intended for. The research article contains heavy use of specialized scientific terms that would be incomprehensible to an everyday person. For example the following excerpt “Different from our earlier opinions about host specificity of S. aureus particular clonal lineages can rapidly adapt to different mammal and avian hosts which is exemplified by livestock-associated MRSA, namely of those attributed to clonal complex CC398. Spread of this clonal complex illustrates the routes of connections by which antibiotic-resistant strains and mobile genetic elements exchange between microbioms of different hosts and centers of antibiotic usage and the potential risks for human health” contain heavy use of scientific terms such as “clonal complexes” and “microbioms” which is far from the everyday language most people would understand. The target audience for this article would likely be others who are well educated in the subject and, are able to understand the highly specialized terminology used by the author. The use of such language can also give credibility to others in the same field which makes for a more effective argument. Meanwhile the finance article uses a more everyday language to get its point across. This kind of language can be seen from the following selection: “Globally, most antibiotics are used in agriculture-added in low doses to animal feed for growth promotion and dis-ease prevention. As in hospitals, antibiotics have become a lower-cost substitute for good hygiene and infection control, which prevent disease in the first place.” The selection is easy to understand and makes it point extremely clear without having to use complex words. Therefore the target audience of the article must not have an interest in over complex explanation of the issue. The overall claim of the finance article also gives clues as to whom the audience might be as it says “Public investment in antibiotics is justified because the lack of effective drugs can create public health emergencies.” The article is hoping to convince its audience that increased public investment in antibiotics will be beneficial to society as a whole which makes it seem that it is directed towards convincing policy makers who might consider such actions. Policy makers are often not experts on many of the things they may vote on so a simple language as used by the finance article would be more effective at swaying their opinion than an article full of scientific jargon they can not comprehend. Through the language used, each respective article is able to communicate well with its intended audience and make an effective claim on the subject.

The differences of rhetorical styles of the research article “Antibiotic resistance” and the finance & development article “Antibiotic Resistance” shows how each is trying to persuade their respective readers. While the research article makes heavy use of scientific jargon, passive voice and, original research to make a specific claim to a select audience the finance article uses more common language, active voice and, social analysis to present a broader solution to a less informed audience. The rhetoric styles in each increases the effectiveness they have in its respective discipline and serves to improve their chances of success. Through the use of these different rhetorical styles both authors are able to discuss their perspective over the issue of antibiotic resistant bacteria and, offer solutions to this extensive issue through two different disciplines,


Works Cited

Witte, W. "Antibiotic Resistance." International Journal of Medical Microbiology. Elsevier GmbH, 3 June 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. <http://www.sciencedirect.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/science/article/pii/S1438422113000829>.

Laxminarayan, Ramanan. "Antibiotic Resistance." Finance & Development. International Monetary Fund, 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 24 Apr. 2015. <http://search.proquest.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/docview/1641828814?pq-origsite=summon>.

Worstall, Tim. "Why We're Running Out Of Antibiotics Is An Economic Problem, Not A Medical Or Pharmaceutical One." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 5 Mar. 2014. Web. 24 Apr. 2015. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/05/03/why-were-running-out-of-antibiotics-is-an-economic-problem-not-a-medical-or-pharmaceutical-one/>.