CASE ANALYSIS: THE PLOS BLOGS NETWORK

The PLOS SciComm blog³ offers a list of “Top 16 in 2016” blog posts from across the PLOS Blogs Network. Top posts are chosen for how much traf-fic they receive, and are then divided into themes deemed by the author to be salient in 2016 (e.g., “public health under pressure,” “gene modification,”

and “meta-research—to address science’s reproducibility problem”) (Costello, 2017). Because health communication has some particular issues that I simply do not have the space to address in this book, and because “meta-research”

on matters of reproducibility is method- and not content-focused, I opted to examine the “gene modification” theme to choose an exemplar. The first blog provided in this theme is from a PhD plant science student, Erin Zess, entitled

“If ‘Are GMOs Bad?’ Is the Wrong Question, What’s the Right One? And How Should Scientists Answer It?” It was shared on the SciComm blog after first being posted as “What We Talk about When We Talk about Genetic Modifica-tion” on the PLOS Synbio Community blog (Zess, 2016).

Zess’s post begins with what we might traditionally call an Establishing the Territory move, in the Swalesian tradition:

3. This blog was not part of the network during the initial data collection period for this chapter, in 2014.

I would argue that the source of a transgene and its’ [sic] method of intro-duction are irrelevant to the safety of the resulting plant. A gene is a gene — it is a sequence of DNA and, as a molecule, DNA has zero chance of harming you. The DNA can be from any organism — literally, any organism — and it is still just a sequence of the same chemical letters, A, T, G, and C. Moreover, the method of transgene introduction, be it by plant breeding or by trans-formation, has no effect on the action of the gene product in the cell. Either the gene is present and active, or it is not. (Zess, 2016)

Recall that Establishing the Territory includes a step to make generalizations about a topic, seen here through an explanation of what we know about trans-genetics, which the author argues should be framed through a discussion of

“action of the gene product in the cell” and not matters of donor or source.

Where I suggest Establishing Interest may function alongside or in place of this first move, it is rather a matter of framing of the content. Intentionally provocative—“irrelevant to the safety of the resulting plant” or “a gene is a gene”—what we see is a move to generate interest not only in the topic, but in a specific argument. Here is it essential for the preconceptions about trans-genetics creating monstrous hybrids (e.g., “frankenfood” metaphors) rather than new genetic combinations. Having set aside what isn’t an important ques-tion—namely, the donor—Zess (2016) turns to what she believes is the matter in hand, functionality in the recipient:

What does matter to me, and what I find of critical concern, is how a trans-gene is read by the cell, what protein product it makes, how that protein acts in the cell, and how that action has consequences outside of the cell and, more generally, outside of the plant. I would argue that, when we debate genetic modification, our debates should be centered on these points. And, crucially, that these debates should be different for each and every GMO [genetically modified organism].

Every GMO has a different transgene or set of transgenes, and thus dif-ferent protein products banging around the cell. Considering this fact, “Are GMOs safe?” is an asinine question.

Establishing a Niche, for Swales, includes steps counterclaiming, indicating a gap, raising questions, or continuing a tradition. By the end of the text quoted above, it is evident that counterclaiming is at work, specifically countering previous debate about the source of genes. Indeed, by the final sentence Zess advances an intentional conflagration to lay waste to moral absolutist argu-ments, which represent the values of a significant percentage of the public (Scott, Inbar, & Rozin, 2016). Explaining Significance, I have argued, helps to

articulate a broader gap, whether related to social concerns or policy making, and in the above example we can see this at work. Further, a move Swales iden-tified as Occupying the Niche, which announces the research or its central find-ings, is not made here. However, we can see some alignment—occupying—by advancing an argument and inhabiting that argument. The next move, then, is not part of a Swalesian model, but rather one that illustrates the argument.

I’m certain that if I made a GM [genetically modified] plant that produced rat poison it would not be safe. However, if I made a GM plant that had a transgene to produce a protein from another plant, previous evidence would suggest that the resultant GMO is going to be harmless. Thus, sweeping gen-eralizations about the safety of GMOs, whether #AntiGMO or #ProGM in their flavour, are insufficient and irresponsible. We need to ask more infor-mative questions and, through this line of inquiry, start a new conversation about GMOs that reflects the complexity of the topic.

Illustrating the Case, recall, opens the body of a post by illustrating the mat-ter raised in the introductory sections. Here another provocative statement is made to illustrate the point: modification techniques that result in poison are not safe, but this has nothing to do with the gene donor. Rather, it is the combi-nation and the expression of the resulting combicombi-nation that must be evaluated.

Rather than, “Are GMOs bad?” we should ask a series of questions for each and every GM product: What is the cellular function of the transgene protein product? How does this cellular function affect the traits of the transgenic plant? Are there negative consequences — for humans, wildlife, or ecologi-cal systems — of these plant traits? Moreover, are there negative downstream effects of the way that this GMO will be used in agriculture? Lastly, do all of the negatives outweigh all of the benefits of using this GMO in agriculture?

These are the questions that regulatory agencies (U. S., Europe) already ask in order to allow GM products on the market — but these are the ques-tions that consumers need to ask, too. Moreover, industry scientists, aca-demics, and government agencies need to be up to the task of answering these questions transparently and in understandable terms. The results of safety testing should be clearly communicated so that when a GMO is deemed “safe,” consumers aren’t left wondering what “safe” means.

Rather than a climate of “hush, hush, trust” this shift would foster an environment of “ask, ask, understand,” — not as punchy to say, but far more powerful. If consumers are able to recognize the primacy of these questions

and access digestible information that satiated their inquisitive appetites, the GM debate as we know it would cease to exist. (Zess, 2016)

In the body of the post, the discussion breaks out points made in the intro-duction, cites sources via links, and further illustrates and reflects on the mat-ter at hand. Above we can see how this blog post accomplishes making the case—which often must be done in fewer than 1,000 words for blog posts.

Although it is certainly not the kind of lengthy and well-supported argument we would expect of a research article, supported arguments are made in the post.

In place of garbage questions, oversimplified hashtags, and jargon-filled sci-entific placations, we’d be able to have a genuine, well-informed discussion about GM technology and the resulting GMOs.

In the context of plant science, genetic modification (GM) technology is the introduction of transgenes into non-native host plant via biotechnology methods. With this now-understandable definition — which has plagued you throughout — I hope that when we talk about genetic modification, we talk about the technology and the safety of the products, leaving the oft-conflated issues (food security, industrial agriculture, Monsanto’s policies) for another conversation.

When we talk about genetic modification technology and the safety of the products, I hope that we also talk about the myriad of products and the diversity of GMOs. I hope that we forgo sweeping generalizations and, instead, opt to ask more nuanced questions and seek accurate answers. With clarity, we can break out of the current circular, unproductive argument and really talk about genetic modification when we talk about “genetic modifica-tion.” (Zess, 2016)

Encouraging Action asks readers to exercise the knowledge they have gained, either conceptually or through social action. In our illustrative case, it appears the call to action is to shift the framing of discourse surrounding GMOs in order to focus on the science itself, setting aside matters of policy (for exam-ple, “food security, industrial agriculture, Monsanto’s policies”). Months later, the National Academies of Science released a report that echoes the call to attend to the products of modification, and not the process per se (National Academies of Sciences and Medicine, 2016), underscoring the broader situa-tion to which this rhetorical acsitua-tion responds. Finally, the biographical infor-mation appears at the conclusion of the post, as well as references for the

associated image, and a standard disclaimer (“The views expressed in this post belong solely to its author and do not necessarily reflect those of PLOS”).

With this illustrative analysis, I hope to show how to use moves for a qualitative analysis. A larger-scale analysis to test these moves might include a broader set of science blogs than those in the PLOS Blogs Network, such as those hosted by Scientific American’s blogs network, and popular blogs that do not belong to blogs networks but have a wide readership. Blending move analysis with a somewhat more forgiving rhetorical orientation toward poly-semy allows for blogs to be examined as they continue to change and find their niche among online genres of science communication. But it is worth considering that although the moves mapped nicely onto this example, there may be distinct genres or types of science blogs that simply will not fit this model. Next I turn to some research that helps unravel this problem, and pro-vide possible heuristics for both analytical and instructive, pedagogical ends.

SUMMARY: A DIFFERENT KIND OF