COVID scientists as rhetorical citizens: Persuasive op-eds and public debate over science policy

To discover the means of persuasion available to experts who embrace the responsibility of public communication in times of crisis, this study uses a text/countertext method of rhetorical analysis on U.S. newspaper editorials by scientists writing about COVID-19 policy. Model arguments to opposition audiences on pandemic restrictions and vaccine policy were selected for close reading. We examined how writers in a pro-con debate in a centrist newspaper appealed mainly to like-minded readers, failing to make arguments designed to change the opinions of those who did not already agree with them. The lack of rhetorical sensitivity in these editorials suggests a need for scientists to better utilize existing resources of language and argument when addressing opposition audiences. Exemplary editorials to opposition audiences in right-leaning and left-leaning newspapers were then examined to illustrate more promising strategies of public persuasion in highly partisan times.