I put together and ran a one-day pre-conference seminar for AARST last November at NCA where we talked about rhetoric and the politicization of science. In the morning were scholarly presentations that included a rhetorical analysis of the presidential science advisor's construction of "science," a talk about how the National Nanotechnology Initiative's "stakeholder outreach" has largely taken the form of a disingenous pre-emptive counter-mobilization, and examinations of the rhetorical strategies used in the cases of the U.S.'s rejection of the Kyoto Accord, the debate over Terry Schiavo, and the incorporation of ideas from nonlinear dynamics into military doctrine. In the afternoon, Chris Mooney came and talked about "The Republican War on Science," his then-recently published and well-received book. Finally, six relatively well-known rhetoricians (Condit, Campbell, Fahnestock, Miller, Lyne, and Simons) discussed the disciplinary implications of the question of science politicization for rhetoric of science.
In sum: a good day of scholarship, with lots of interesting and thoughtful presentations. I felt pretty good about it. But then a colleague pointed out this comment on the pre-conference to me:
Ulp.



Recent comments
6 days 15 hours ago
1 week 2 days ago
1 week 4 days ago
1 week 4 days ago
3 weeks 4 days ago
3 weeks 6 days ago
3 weeks 6 days ago
4 weeks 6 days ago
5 weeks 3 days ago
6 weeks 3 days ago