| The Human Genome Project (HGP), a {dollar}437 million effort that began in 1990 to chart the chemical sequence of our three billion base pairs of DNA, was completed in 2003, marking the 50th anniversary that proved the definitive structure of the molecule. This study considered how dialectical and rhetorical arguments functioned in the science, political, and public forums over a 20-year period, from 1980 to 2000, to advance human genome research and to establish the official project.; I argue that Aristotle's continuum of knowledge---which ranges from the probable on one end to certified or demonstrated knowledge on the other---provides useful distinctions for analyzing scientific reasoning. While contemporary scientific research seeks to discover certified knowledge, investigators generally employ the hypothetico-deductive or scientific method, which often yields probable rather than certain findings, making these dialectical in nature.; Analysis of the discourse describing human genome research revealed the use of numerous rhetorical figures and topics. Persuasive and probable reasoning were necessary for scientists to characterize unknown genetic phenomena, to secure interest in and funding for large-scale human genome research, to solve scientific problems, to issue probable findings, to convince colleagues and government officials that the findings were sound and to disseminate information to the public. Both government and private venture scientists drew on these tools of reasoning to promote their methods of mapping and sequencing the genome. The debate over how to carry out sequencing was rooted in conflicting values. Scientists representing the academic tradition valued a more conservative method that would establish high quality results, and those supporting private industry valued an unconventional approach that would yield products and profits more quickly. Values in turn influenced political and public forum arguments. Agency representatives and investors sided with the approach that reflected values they supported. Fascinated with this controversy and the convincing comparisons, the media often endorsed Celera's work for its efficiency.; The analysis of discourse from the science, political, and public forums revealed that value systems influenced the accuracy and quality of the arguments more than the type or number of figures used to describe the research to various audiences. |
