Lucero Ortega

Instructor: Susan Delamare

English 21007

November 28, 2019

Rhetorical Analysis of a Research Paper in the Field of Biomedical Engineering

 

The research paper, written by Emily K Cushine, et al. (2014) was chosen because the body being able to regenerate its own tissues and organs is a topic of interest. Finding a way to do this would be a groundbreaking discovery and would change so many lives. People would no longer have to wait an uncertain amount of time to receive an organ transplant and injuries would be able to heal faster. It could potentially lead to cures for many diseases and would change the field of medicine drastically. The purpose of a rhetorical analysis is to describe and state how the author presents their idea to the reader. This will be examined in the way they write, by comparing it to the IMRaD format, the words they use and through the use of ethos, pathos, and logos to get to the purpose of the text.

The authors address the scientific community, specifically doctors and surgeons involved in orthopedics, engineers that specialize in biomaterials and researchers that may be interested in expanding the field of bone tissue regeneration and solving problems related to bone disorders and conditions. This is supported by the way the text is written. It appears to be intended to be read and understood by professionals and those who have high-level knowledge of the topic. For instance, while describing the procedure, various materials and techniques were mentioned that did not need describing. This is because the reader should already know what the function of each material is and what each technique does. Throughout the paper, there are multiple graphs and pictures showing the data and results that not everyone would know how to read. The paper was published through the Journal PLOS ONE. According to their website, they publish multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research in the areas of science, engineering, medicine and related social sciences and humanities (Journal Information, n.d).

The authors of this peer-reviewed research paper are Emily K. Cushnie, Bret D. Ulery, Stephen J. Nelson, Meng Deng, Swaminathan Sethuraman, Stephen B. Doty, Kevin W H. Lo, Yusuf M. Khan, and Cato T. Laurencin. Almost every person that contributed to this research paper is connected to a university and is part of an engineering or science department while others are part of a medical institution. Some authors are a part of both a research university and a hospital. Knowing this information, one can assume that they have had years of research and that they are most likely engineers and medical professionals.

The exigency that drives the research is the need for a new biomaterial for bone tissue engineering. This can also expand to other areas where regenerative engineering can be applied. The need for this research to be successful can be seen when the current materials that are used are mentioned in the introduction. It goes on to say that although they work well enough to achieve their purpose there is plenty of concern that surrounds those materials. Such concerns include high costs, unwanted immunological reactions, and undesired ectopic tissue development. This is explicitly stated and tells the reader that the current method is not very beneficial to the patient and that alternative methods are urgently needed.

Some of the genre conventions found in the research paper include the way the paper is formatted. For example, it breaks it down by introduction, materials and methods, analysis of the data and finally the discussion. By comparison, the IMRaD consists of an introduction, method, results, and discussion. As can be seen, the conventions of the research paper resemble the conventions in IMRaD. Some things that are different are that the paper also includes an abstract and a reference page. One thing some research papers may include is to state if there is a bias for the experiment being conducted. It also usually includes the source of the money that will be funding the research. Under the abstract, the authors state who funded the work and if there were any competing interests.

 

Numerous examples of ethos, pathos, and logos can be found throughout the text. To begin, one example of ethos can be found under the section where materials and methods are mentioned. It states that subjects used for the experiment conducted were Male New Zealand White Rabbits. As a result, the experiment is an in vivo animal experiment and approval is needed by a board to guarantee that they will not be mistreated. Such an approval was obtained from the Animal Care and Use Committee. This leads the reader to believe that the research is credible and that it can be trusted. Another example of ethos is when it is mentioned that the previous methods of bone grafts are expensive. Under the introduction section, the authors state that although the previous bone graft substitutes have been successful it has “been plagued by concerns” (Emily K Cushine, et al. 2014). These concerns include high costs and unwanted immunological reactions. It reinforces that the research that the authors want to conduct is a necessity adding to their credibility.

An example of logos can be found in the very beginning of the research paper, specifically in the introduction.  It states that half of Americans will experience a traumatic bone fracture and that leads to the possibility that they will need a bone graft. If the reader is an American, this can lead them to believe that logically they could be one of the 50% of Americans and this would cause them to be supportive of this type of research. Like many studies that are conducted, funding and support is necessary, and this might be a way of achieving that among other scientist or anyone with an interest in the subject. A second example of logos is present in the results section. Throughout the section, the authors place graphs and pictures showing the results that they obtained.  The paper mentions previous studies about calcium and phosphate ions and bone repair. They do this right before mentioning the result of their studies. This is an example of logos because they want to show the author that there is other evidence out there other than the experiment, they conducted themselves that proves this research can be accepted. The organization of the paper is an example of logos because it begins by talking about a problem and solutions that exist but need improving, it shows how a new solution can be found and ends by stating the results of those solutions. This shows that the proposed solution to the problem is possible and can go beyond just solving the specific problem stated in the very beginning.

One example of pathos that can be found in the paper is when it mentions that there are more than 115,000 people in the United States that await an organ transplant. The authors try to sway the reader that regenerative engineering is extremely important by explicitly stating the number of people in the country that would benefit from further expanding the research. It further emphasizes this point by stating that “over 7,000 people will die each year waiting for a viable donor organ to become available”(Emily K Cushine, et al. 2014). These statements are placed in a very important location, the discussion because it is where the important parts of the paper are summarized and is the very last section to be read and what readers will remember most.

From analyzing the research paper, I have learned that scientific material can include pathos in the writing.  I also learned that the people who contribute to the paper have different backgrounds in the medical and engineering fields while still having the same purpose. Formatting is extremely important to make it easier for someone who may not have the same knowledge as the researchers to follow along. This is done by breaking it down into smaller sections with detailed tiles and given them accompanying figures and graphs. Lastly, I learned that scientific papers are not only about presenting facts but about convincing others that the research is important.

 

Reference

Cushnie, E. K., Ulery, B. D., Nelson, S. J., Deng, M., Sethuraman, S., Doty, S. B., Lo, K. W. H., and Khan, Y. M., Laurencin, C.T. (2014). Simple signaling molecules for inductive bone regenerative engineering. PloS one, 9(7)

PLOS ONE. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information.