Stem Cells: Natural Science vs. Public Administration

In 1990 the Human Genome Project was initiated as a challenge for scientists around the world to work together towards the advancement of mankind. Thirteen years later the project was completed which was two years shorter than estimated. The significance, of which many thought was impossible, is that we can completely read the genetic blueprint for building a human (HGP). This remarkable project opened many avenues for genetic research, but the one most scholars are fascinated with are stem cells. These unique cells are undifferentiated and have the capability to become any type of cell specialized to that DNA sequence (Stem). Scientists are concerned with utilizing the potential of these cells; however, others are concerned with the policy regulations and moral issues surrounding stem cell research. Though I am not here to dispute the controversy, I would like to shed some light on how scholars participate in the stem cell conversation, whether that be directly or indirectly. Many disciplines participate in this conversation, but I will be focusing on the field of natural sciences and public administration. Both viewpoints of stem cells approach the conversation with a unique style and argumentative conventions. The scientific article “Pioneer Factors Govern Super-Enhancer Dynamics In Stem Cell Plasticity And Lineage Choice” uses a very systematic high style writing approach with scientific language and specialized terminology in order to obtain credibility and portray findings professionally. The public administration articles author “Diversity In Public Views Toward Stem Cell Sources And Policies” writes in a very relatable middle style using everyday diction and societal correspondence to apply to a larger group of scholars. The scientific article isolates itself from the social controversy of stem cells because they focus on advancing the field of research; however, the public administration article focuses on only the debate of stem cell research and policy regulation. In exploring different uses of rhetoric, it is important to take into account the purpose of each article along with the different audiences they appeal to.

In order to gain a better understanding of the rhetoric behind these two articles, we can think about each author’s purpose for writing their article. Broadly, the scientific article is offering newly obtained data to further advance scientific research of stem cells. The author is portraying the idea of “new embryonic fate” that has not been researched in the scientific field to create discussion among scholars and hopefully establish credibility. Using a systematic approach, concrete and straightforward thinking, and specialized jargon, the author establishes strong credibility among scientists. The primary purpose of the scientific article is to offer the new stem cell findings to the world of scientific scholars in hopes of contributing to what is currently known about stem cells. In contrast, the stakes of the public administration article are relevant to a more general group of scholars. The author does this by showing how a loose, middle of the road, and strong regulation policy of stem cell transplants could affect society. Though the scientific article’s stakes were much more detached from how they will directly affect society, the public administration article was much more involved. A unique example “In theory it’s great (referring to stem cell transplant), but as soon as you test it on humans and something goes wrong, that’s a problem” showing how it potentially will affect humans negatively. From looking at the purposes of each article, you can see how the scientific article indirectly participates in controversy of stem cell research while the public administration is directly addressing it.

The scientific article author, Rene Adams, uses a systematic style writing to show a preconceived structure keeping very close to the details of his experiment. The author writes in this way so the audience can take what is learned and apply this to what is already known about stem cell research (Systematics). The systematic approach is most obvious from “Anagen skin was treated with collagenase at 37 °C for 30 min to dissociate dermal cells and then incubated with trypsin at 37 °C for 15 min to detach and generate single-cell suspensions of the epidermal and HF cells. Cells were then washed with PBS containing 5% of fetal bovine serum (FBS), then filtered through 70 μm and 40 μm cell strainers.”, with the constant use of then. This establishes a very linear relationship with his methodology and that each step happened in that order respectively. In contrast, the public administration article author, Edna Einsiedel, uses a more dynamic writing style starting with first person speech, “I think research should go on and it should be supported, although I would be very uncomfortable if there was no oversight. I wouldn’t want just anyone cooking up genetically modified cells” and “We also explored public views on different policy models as a preliminary step towards a large-scale survey on the subject.” then changing to third person, “At the end of each session, participants were given a post-focus group questionnaire, asking them to indicate levels of acceptability for different stem cell sources, as well as what they perceived to be the benefits or drawbacks of stem cell research.” On top of first and third person writing, the author also includes verbatim answers such as “I can support either the middle or permissive approaches because policies at least show government responsibility.” to aid in the relativity of stem cell controversy and the audience. The reader can more easily understand the authors methodology because it includes a random sample of humans, in contrast with the hair follicle cells used in the scientific experiment. This is used to gain credibility among the specific audiences each is writing for. In the scientific article, a systematic style shows organization and accuracy in the scientific work. In the public administration article, a loose dynamic style shows relatability and variation in the response data collected. This means that verbatim answers, and switching in between first and third person tenses is necessary when writing about a public policy, resulting in great credibility.

The author of the scientific article uses scientific jargon, long outputting sentence structure, and he writes in a passive voice when articulating findings; however, the author of the public administration article uses an easier to read specialized word choice consisting of shorter sentences and active voice. To understand how the different authors used different rhetorical strategies, it is important to observe the diction and voice of each article. The scientific article opened with “Adult stem cells occur in niches that balance self-renewal with lineage selection and progression during tissue homeostasis” showing a highly selective vocabulary. This is to establish credibility among other scientists who are involved with stem cells. If they used a much more simpler version of that sentence, such as “Stem cells live in groups that grow together when making tissue” then the author would lose ample credibility. These two sentences mean essentially the same thing, but the jargon must be highly specialized. If the author would have found an advancement in the stem cell field and could not articulate it professionally, then it could be overlooked potentially setting science behind. This is in comparison with the public administration article, where they open with “Studies of public views on stem cell research have traditionally focused on human embryonic stem cells”. If this author had written scientifically, such as “Embryonic development in hESC and iNSCNT aid in public controversy in vitro” would leave the audience perplexed and defeat the purpose of the experimentation. This author articulates his findings with a more general word choice not only to be easier to understand, but so he can also establish credibility among his audience. The reason this matters is because diction of choice correlates with the type of voice each author writes in. Scientific diction brings about a highly passive and distant voice from the article. In the discussion section author one writes ”By contrast, the reporter was silenced in committed TACs, which lack hair follicle stem cell TFs altogether” where only passive voice is used. The key indicator of passive voice is the use of was. If you were to rewrite this in active voice “The committed TACs silenced the reporter” it takes on an entirely different vibe. This creates a large disconnect for what the author is trying to find. His primary goal is to further scientific knowledge, which cannot be achieved without a linear scientific approach. This is necessary for scientific writing because it makes it appear the argument is unbiased as well as detaching from any sources of pathos. However, in the public administration article the author uses only active voice to establish a connection between the audience, the author, and what is being tested. A particularly important example is “They also suggested that this absence of regulation could lead to the abuse of vulnerable people or animals” where you can see the author appealing the the readers emotions. He does this by saying that if there is no regulation then people are potentially vulnerable to improper stem cell transfer which will lead to abuse and eventually death. The author must be involved in the discussion to be a viable credible source. If this was written in passive voice, as the author of scientific article intended, then the overall purpose could not be met.

Rene Adam uses a clear, in-depth level of organization for the stem cell experiment. The reason this is immensely important is so that it may be replicated by other scientists, thus stimulating a mock experimentation. This can test for errors, assuming credibility is not completely established, and explore any uncertainties among other scholars. This creates a thoroughly peer reviewed experiment that contains minimal errors. This article follows the format of a lab write up, but contains excessive sub headings once a new step was being initiated. Instead of saying method for transformation, he uses 11 subheadings for each individual process within the actual transformation exceeding the usual IMRAD formatting. This establishes surplus credibility along with being easily replicated. The organization level in the public administration article contains a more formal use of the IMRAD formatting, but elaborates much more in the discussion section. This is because the author is not focusing on the experiment itself, but what we can learn from the results; however, the author of the scientific article elaborated on the methods because it is focusing on the actual experimentation to allow sufficient replication. These two articles also differ with the length of their introductions. The scientific article has a nineteen paragraph introduction while the other article has one. These reflect the overall purpose of each article. The scientific article is to provide as much detailed information about the topic to gain credibility so his findings will be significant. The public administration article only needs to state that their is a controversy among stem cell treatments to attract the audience's attention and later focus on the implications of the controversy.


When comparing two scholarly articles it is important to look at all the rhetorical differences in order to be knowledgeable about how the perspectives are different. When observing only the surface level of each article, it is impossible to see how each discipline approaches the same topic from different viewpoints. To fairly understand what the articles were written for, you must dissect the different use of rhetoric, including purpose, voice, diction, organization, and writing style. Though being involved in the conversation of stem cells, the scientific article uses a more sophisticated, highly specialized approach full of scientific language and elaborate methodology to establish credibility among scientists and portray his results; however the public administration article uses a more general approach using easier to read sentences and elaborate conversation to establish credibility among scholars and share his results in the form of a discussion focused article.

Works Cited

Adam, Rene C., Hanseul Yang, Shira Rockowitz, Samantha B. Larsen, Maria Nikolova,
Daniel S. Oristian, Lisa Polak, Meelis Kadaja, Amma Asare, Deyou Zheng, and Elaine Fuchs. "Pioneer Factors Govern Super-enhancer Dynamics in Stem Cell Plasticity and Lineage Choice." Nature. Nature Science, 18 Mar. 2015. Web. 10 Apr. 2015.

Einsiedel, Edna, Shainur Premji, Rose Geransar, Noelle C. Orton, Thushaanthini
Thavaratnam, and Laura K. Bennett. "Diversity in Public Views Toward Stem Cell Sources and Policies." ProQuest. Humana Press, 22 Apr. 2009. Web. 10 Apr. 2015.