How do scientists persuade colleagues from diverse fields to cross the disciplinary divide, risking their careers in new interdisciplinary research programs? Why do some attempts to inspire such research win widespread acclaim and support, while others do not? In Shaping Science with Rhetoric, Leah Ceccarelli addresses such questions through close readings of three scientific monographs in their historical contextsaTheodosius Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937), which inspired the qmodern synthesisq of evolutionary biology; Erwin SchrApdinger's What Is Life? (1944), which catalyzed the field of molecular biology; and Edward O. Wilson's Consilience (1998), a so far not entirely successful attempt to unite the social and biological sciences. She examines the rhetorical strategies used in each book and evaluates which worked best, based on the reviews and scientific papers that followed in their wake. Ceccarelli's work will be important for anyone interested in how interdisciplinary fields are formed, from historians and rhetoricians of science to scientists themselves.36 Naturalists such as Emerson recognized that the study of genetic drift would force geneticists to collaborate with naturalists and ... Appealing to Naturalists The social concerns that would guide the naturalists of the 1930s into synthesis were very ... For example, he hinted that genetics might have an answer to an observation long made by systematists and other ... a tool for discovering phylogenetic relationships, a long-time goal of natural historians (DG, 88a114, 195a201, 211a19).
|Title||:||Shaping Science with Rhetoric|
|Publisher||:||University of Chicago Press - 2001-07-01|