1
WRTG 3030
Writing on Science and Society
Summer 2012
Instructor: Mary Butler
Office: ENVD 1B27H
Basement of Environmental Design building (enter Program for Writing and Rhetoric door); past copier, turn left to end
of hall, then left again
Office Hours: MW 9:10 a.m. to 10 a.m.; or by appointment
Office phone: (303) 818-0068
E-mail: Mary.Butler@Colorado.Edu or MaryButlerInBoulder@gmail.com
Access course e-reserves articles at: http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu. Click on “reserves” tab. Search by instructor name
or WRTG 3030. Enter identikey and password, PLUS the course password: jake (lowercase).
For Occasions essays, go to http://www.colorado.edu/pwr/occasions/list.html. Or from the PWR home page,
www.colorado.edu/pwr, click on “Resources.”
COURSE DESCRIPTION: In the 21st century, we constantly write: text messages, emails, Facebook updates, as well as
more formal memos, letters, proposals, essays, academic journal articles, theses and dissertations. We write to connect
with others, to inform, to express ideas, and to argue and persuade. As scientists and engineers, in addition to
communicating ideas on science and technology to those both inside and outside of your specific field, you’ll need to
take positions on ethical questions (what do you believe and why?) and answer questions such as: Why is your proposal
the best? Why is your work important? This course will help you improve your critical thinking, writing, and speaking
skills so that you may do this effectively. You will gain familiarity with professional business documents and learn to
apply your disciplinary expertise to broader social and ethical issues. The point is for you to learn to exercise your
abilities and responsibilities as individuals within your chosen professions and as citizens within larger communities.
You will begin by reading articles that highlight ethical issues in science and technology, and, in a number of short
assignments, you’ll react to the writing and analyze the rhetorical situations. You will also work on larger projects—a
developed argument on an ethical issue and a longer individualized project, suited to your particular interests and
expertise. This project will employ a professional writing genre—a proposal—that requires substantive development,
appropriate to its audience. Assignment sheets will explain assignments and projects in more detail.
The focus of this class is to help you shape your writing and speaking so that you say is clear, persuasive, and supported
with evidence.
Texts: Your writing
Paradis & Zimmerman, The MIT Guide to Science and Engineering Communication ed.2
Selected Readings (on Electronic Reserve. See <http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu>)
Occasions (available online; see <http://www.colorado.edu/pwr/occasions/list.html>)
A notebook or folder for informal writing (short assignments, journal entries).
COURSE CONTEXT
University of Colorado at Boulder Core Requirement: Offered through the Program for Writing and Rhetoric, College of
Arts and Sciences, WRTG 3030 fulfills the core upper-division writing requirement for students majoring in engineering
and in physical and biological sciences. The course builds on skills practiced in the first year writing core requirement by
applying an advanced understanding of rhetorical concepts to communication within specialized fields.
Specifically, this course will extend your rhetorical knowledge, your experience in the writing process, your mastery of
writing conventions, and your awareness of effective communication strategies.
Extend Rhetorical Knowledge. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion by the use of any means possible, and how well you
implement its principles will determine your success as a writer. In this class, as we analyze different readings and
writings, all written for different audiences with varying purposes, to gain insights into the various strategies different
writers employ to influence their audiences. For instance, Michael Halloran, in “The Birth of Molecular Biology: An Essay
2
in the Rhetorical Criticism of Scientific Discourse,” shows how, in “A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid,” the
rhetorical choices of James Watson and Francis Crick effect the tremendous audience acceptance of their conception of
DNA. In articles as varied as George Brown’s, “Technology’s Dark Side” and Barbara Ehrenreich’s, “Science, Lies and the
Ultimate Truth,” we’ll see how each writer’s rhetorical choices—from organization of material to sentence structure and
word choice—result in a specific kind of clear, dynamic writing that affects audiences in a particular way.
Extend Experience in Writing Processes. In workshop you’ll present early drafts of your papers to some or all members
of the class to allow you to see how an audience reacts to your work. As part of this, you will provide constructive
feedback on the work of others and gain a stronger sense of the needs of audiences.
Extend Mastery of Writing Conventions. The formal papers of this course call for appropriate conventions of academic
and professional writing. You’ll learn how audience determines the conventions you use, whether you are writing a
summary, an analysis, or a proposal. Instruction will focus on rhetorically informed strategies relevant to the
communication needs of engineering and scientific fields, dealing with issues of style, grammar, and organization in the
context of larger rhetorical and argumentative concerns. The goal will always be to create clear dynamic writing that
meets the needs of the audience.
COURSE POLICIES
Workshop: The course emphasizes revision; you’ll present several drafts of your major papers to others in workshop.
While the working drafts will not be graded, I expect you to give considerable thought and attention to all work you turn
in. The “first draft” you turn in for workshop will probably not be the first draft you write—even in an early draft, you
should strive to be clear and meet the needs of your audience. Be sure you keep working on your next draft as we
review the drafts of others in workshop. These drafts are necessary to the progress of your writing and necessary to
class discussion.
Unless you have made prior arrangements with me, I will only accept a draft or paper on or before the date due. Copies
of drafts are due at the beginning of class. Failure to turn in drafts on time will lower the final grade of your paper. I will
take off five points for each time you fail to turn in a draft when it is due. (Allow time for printer problems. Plan ahead
to have money to make copies. Staple pages before class.) In workshop we will critique the drafts, point out strengths
and weaknesses, determine ways to improve the drafts. You will not necessarily receive an individual critique in class of
each draft you turn in. After workshop you will revise that draft. Revisions for me must be handed in with my previous
marked-up draft attached.
Work must be original and written for the class. I will not accept a final paper that has not been reviewed in workshop.
Be sure you document all sources appropriately, using a standard style such as MLA or APA—use a style handbook, a
website such as Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab, http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/, or
citation software such as EasyBib (which is free), RefWorks (provided through CU), or EndNote for guidance. See me or
the Writing Center if you need extra help.
Attendance: Attendance is required—we need your input in the workshop since we rely on each other as fellow writers
and as readers. I allow three absences, excused or unexcused, but after that you will lose five points from your final
grade for each subsequent absence (I only make exceptions for extraordinary circumstances such as hospitalization;
exceptions must be agreed upon in writing). Use your absences wisely. If you do miss a class, please contact another
student to find out what happened in class; you are responsible for knowing what went on. Moreover, if you miss a
class before a workshop day, please pick up and prepare the drafts for that workshop. Those drafts will be emailed to
me before class at marybutlerinboulder@gmail.com. Come to class prepared and on time. Be aware that late arrivals or
early departures will count as absences (if your previous class is on the other side of campus, please let me know in
writing if you will be slightly late to class).
Participation: While we will have in-class time for work-shopping drafts, sometimes it will be necessary to pick up, read,
and mark your colleagues’ papers before class. Active participation throughout the semester is crucial to the writing
workshop, so come to class ready to comment on the papers. Failure to prepare for workshop ahead of time will hurt
your participation grade. 15% of your grade depends on participation.
3
Paper Format: Except for informal writing, such as DEJs all papers must be typed, double-spaced, with at least 1"
margins on all sides. For all assignments, please include in heading: your name, the assignment title (i.e. Ethics
argument, 1st draft) and the due date. Also, in the unlikely event that the original paper gets lost, keep a copy of every
paper you turn in (and don’t forget to back up your hard drive daily). Please keep returned short assignments in your
notebook.
Plagiarism: Your work must be original. If you present the work or ideas of someone else as your own, you are
plagiarizing. If you fail to use quotation marks for directly quoted work, if you fail to document another's ideas, if you
document falsely, if you submit someone else's work as your own, you are plagiarizing. Any paper that contains
plagiarism will be failed. Plagiarism is grounds for failing the course--ignorance is no excuse. See also MIT p.131,
“Paraphrases” attached to this syllabus. If you are not sure whether or not you are inadvertently plagiarizing, talk to me
or to someone in the Writing Center before turning in your paper. This course provides an opportunity to understand
issues of intellectual property and the appropriate use and citation of sources. For a general introduction, see the
Student Honor Code at http://www.colorado.edu/policies/honor.html.
Email, on-line materials, electronic devices: Since we will frequently use email communication, please check your email
account several times a week. If you live off campus, you will need to establish remote access to the library to access
on-line library materials through your home computer. See the University Libraries website for information on setting
proxy servers. Otherwise, you will need to use library computers. Before class, please turn off electronic devices, such as
cell phones. Do not send text messages in class unless you wish to receive an absence for that day. In class you may only
use laptops to access class materials and readings. For assistance on technical computing matters, contact 735-HELP or
5-4357 for the ITS Help-line.
Grading:
Short Assignments (includes informal writing, journal assignments): 25%
Ethics Argument Essay 20%
Oral Report: 10%
Proposal: 30%
Participation: 15%
Grading Standards
A (90-100%): A paper that is exceptional in form and content; original, substantive, insightful, beautifully organized.
Clear, error-free style.
B (80-89%): A clearly written, well-developed, very interesting paper that shows above average thought and writing
craft. No major flaws.
C (70-79%): A paper that presents a mixture of strengths and weaknesses. It may be organized on the surface level and
attempt to support a thesis, but have unresolved problems in conception or reasoning, possibly accompanied by
distracting grammatical errors and stylistic flaws. It may work to fulfill the basic requirements of the assignment, but,
finally, say little of significance. It may be a competently written essay that is mainly descriptive when the assignment
requires analytical or argumentative writing.
D (60-69%): A paper seriously deficient in content, form, style, or mechanics. It may be disorganized, illogical, confusing,
unfocused, or contain pervasive errors that impair readability.
F (0-59%: A paper that is incoherent, unacceptably late, plagiarized, or not turned in
SPECIAL NOTES
Second Language: If you speak English as a second language, you should contact me before the third class meeting so
that I can better assist you in the course, advise you about special ESL courses, and/or refer you (if needed or desired) to
appropriate services on campus.
Disabilities: If you qualify for accommodations because of a disability, please submit to me a letter from Disability
Services in a timely manner so that your needs may be addressed. Disability Services determines accommodations based
on documented disabilities (Willard 322, 303-492-8671 <www.colorado.edu/disabilityservices>). I will make every
4
reasonable and appropriate effort to meet your learning needs. Whether you “qualify” for accommodations or not,
please let me know if your learning style varies significantly from the norm. We can work out our own accommodations.
Religious Observance. In accordance with university policy, I will make reasonable accommodation for religious
observance. Please let me know ahead of time if you will be absent. If, because of your observance, any conflicts come
up with work due, talk to me so we can reschedule. See <http://www.colorado.edu/policies/fac_relig.html>.
Classroom behavior: Students and faculty each have responsibility for maintaining an appropriate learning environment.
Students who fail to adhere to behavioral standards maybe subject to discipline. Faculty have the professional
responsibility to treat students with understanding, dignity and respect, to guide classroom discussion, and to set
reasonable limits on the manner in which students express opinions. Professional courtesy and sensitivity are especially
important with respect to differences of race, culture, religion, politics, sexual orientation, gender, and nationalities. See
policies at http://www.colorado.edu/policies/classbehavior.html and
http://www.colorado.edu/studentaffairs/judicialaffairs/code.html#student_code .
Honor Code: All students of the University of Colorado at Boulder are responsible for knowing and adhering to the
academic integrity policy of this institution. Violations of this policy may include cheating, plagiarism, academic
dishonesty, fabrication, lying, bribery, and threatening behavior. I will report all incidents of academic misconduct to the
Honor Code Council. Students who are found to be in violation of the academic integrity policy will be subject to both
academic and non-academic sanctions (including but not limited to university probation, suspension, or expulsion).
Additional information may be found at http://www.colorado.edu/policies/honor.html and
http://www.colorado.edu/academics/honorcode/ .
Sexual harassment: The University of Colorado Policy on Sexual Harassment applies to all students, staff, and
faculty. Any student, staff or faculty member who believes s/he has been sexually harassed should contact the Office of
Sexual Harassment at 303-492-2127 or the Office of Judicial Affairs at 303-492-5550. Information about the OSH and
the campus resources available to assist individuals who believe they have been sexually harassed may be found at
http://www.colorado.edu/sexualharassment/
Short assignments/reading responses:
DEJ--Double entry journal
When you read, read actively. Use your pencil, to mark any thing that strikes you: significant passages, important ideas,
concepts, anything that is confusing. Write questions and comments in the margins. Then create a DEJ: divide a
notebook page in two. On the left, for a passage that interests or disturbs you, quote or paraphrase the text. On the
right, respond to the text—see below. Be sure to give all bibliographic information from the source at the top of the
page; note page numbers and paragraph #s for each passage.
______________________________________________________________
Source, Bibliographical information.
p. #.
p. #.
What the text says.
Write out the passage: anything
that interests you, surprises
you, confuses you.
What I think
Write out your response
in sentences.
Write down material accurately.
Use direct quotes, paraphrase,
summarize.
Give quick thoughts,
or fastwrite.
List questions you have.
p. #
Indicate beginning and end of passage.
Tell what bothers you.
____________________________________________________________________
5
As you read or reread, move back and forth from one column to the other. Explore your responses. Make connections to
other ideas. Analyze.
Reaction 1-pager: React to the article you read: What resonated with you? What questions were you left with?
Challenge the writer. As you write, please be specific, but let yourself go a little. Write about ¾ of a page to a page. You
may consider some of the following questions as you write.





What is the writer’s purpose? Does the writer support his purpose satisfactorily?
What in the evidence or the logic of the argument makes the main point less than convincing?
What bothers you about the essay? What do you disagree with? What confuses you?
What interests you, pleases you, surprises you? What’s new here that people should pay attention to? -What relates to your life? To the lives of others?
What do you like (dislike) about the style of writing?
Five important points: Identify five points that you believe are important from the reading in your own words.
Readings
Begley, Sharon. “Is Science Censored?” Newsweek 14 Sept. 1992. Rpt. Mackenzie 455-457.
Brown, George E. “Technology’s Dark Side.”The Chronicle of Higher Education. 30 June 1993. Rpt.
Mackenzie 274-278.
Ehrenreich, Barbara. “Science, Lies and The Ultimate Truth.” Time 1991. Rpt. Mackenzie 405-407.
Gopen, George D. and Judith A. Swan. “The Science of Scientific Writing.” American
Scientist Nov.-Dec. 1990: 550--558.
Halloran, Michael S. “The Birth of Molecular Biology: An Essay in the Rhetorical Criticism of Scientific
Discourse.” Rhetorical Review 3, 1984: 71-83. Rpt. Mackenzie 484-496.
Kidder, Rushworth M. “How Good People Make Tough Choices.” Institute for Global Ethics 2005.
26 August 2007 <http://www.globalethics.org/resources/How-Good-People-Make-Tough-Choices-byRushworth-M-Kidder/28>,.
Lanham, Richard. “Who’s Kicking Who?” Revising Prose. New York: Scribner’s, 1979. 1-6.
Murphy, Paul. “Form and the Essay.” Occasions 2000. Boulder: University of Colorado, 2000. vii-xi.
MacKenzie, Nancy R. ed. Science and Technology Today: Readings for Writers. New York: St Martin’s,
1995 . [ Most eReserve essays are from this source.]
McPhee, John. “Controlling the Atchafalaya River.” From John McPhee, The Control of Nature. New
York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1989. Rpt. Mackenzie 358-365.
Paradis, James G. and Muriel L. Zimmerman. The MIT Guide to Science and Engineering
Communication. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT press, 2002.
Thomas, Lewis. “The Hazards of Science.” From Lewis Thomas, The Medusa and the Snail. New York:
Viking Penguin, 1977. Rpt. Mackenzie 149-154.
Watson, James D. and Francis H.C. Crick. “A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid.” Nature April 1953.
Rpt. Mackenzie 479-482.
*This syllabus is an adaptation of PWR Instructor Victoria Tuttle’s 2009 spring syllabus for WRTG 3030
6
Schedule for the Course (Schedule may be adjusted.)
Week 1: June 4-8
Monday: Introduction to the course
Read and write a reaction 1-pager to “The Hazards of Science” by Lewis Thomas. See e-Reserves.
Tuesday: Reading for rhetorical strategies
Summarize and identify the thesis and main points of “Technology’s Dark Side,” by George Brown. See e-Reserves.
Wednesday: Argumentation
Write a double-entry journal for Barbara Ehrenreich’s “Science, Lies and The Ultimate Truth.” See e-Reserves.
Identify 5 important points from Chapter 1 of the MIT Guide to Science and Engineering Communication.
Thursday: The essay (first assignment – the ethical argument)
Write a double-entry journal for Sharon Begley’s “Is Science Censored?” See e-Reserves.
Identify 5 important points from MIT Chapters 3 and 4.
Friday: No class – use this time to research your first essay.
Week 2: June 11-15
Monday: The structure of an essay
Identify 5 important points from Paul Murphy’s “Form and the Essay.” See e-Reserves.
Bring Murphy and Occasions essays: “Dangers of Carbon Nanotubes,” and “From Hoof to Hand:
Antibiotic Use in
Livestock and Antibiotic Resistance in Humans.”
Tuesday: Developing the essay
John McPhee’s “Controlling the Atchafalaya River.” See e-Reserves.
Wednesday:
How Good People Make Tough Choices by Rushworth Kidder: http://www.globalethics.org/resources/How-GoodPeople-Make-Tough-Choices-by-Rushworth-M-Kidder/28
Thursday: 1st draft workshop (identify thesis statements/write reaction paragraphs to peers’ work)
Revise 2 sentences from Richard Lantham’s “Who’s Kicking Who?” See e-Reserves.
Friday: Language
Identify 5 important points from MIT’s Chapter 9.
Week 3: June 28-22
Monday: Sources
Identify 5 important points from MIT’s Chapter 5.
Begin reading George D. Gopen and Judith A. Swan’s “The Science of Scientific Writing.” See e-Reserves.
Tuesday: Full draft essay workshop
Finish reading George D. Gopen and Judith A. Swan’s “The Science of Scientific Writing.” See e-Reserves.
Wednesday:
Identify 5 important points from MIT’s Chapter 10.
Thursday: Intro to the proposal
Reaction 1-pager to Watson and Crick’s “A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid.” See e-Reserves.
Friday: Proposal workshop
Double-entry journal for Michael S. Halloran’s “The Birth of Molecular Biology: An Essay in the Rhetorical Criticism of
Scientific Discourse.” See e-Reserves.
Week 4: June 25-29
Monday: Ethics essay due; Rhetorical analysis
Tuesday-Friday: Proposal research and work: First draft due by Thursday.
Week 5: July 2-6 (no class Wednesday)
Full draft proposal work-shopping all week, plus presentations. Proposal due end of day Friday (midnight).
7