References
- Adam, M. (2008). Promoting disinterestedness or making use of bias? Interests and moral obligation in commercialized research. In M. Carrier, D. Howard, & J. Kournay (Eds.), The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice: Science and values revisited (pp. 235–254). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
- Anderson, A. A., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., & Corley, E. A. (2012). The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(2), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edr032
- Asen, R. (2002). Visions of poverty: Welfare policy and political imagination. Michigan State University Press.
- Asen, R. (2010). Reflections on the role of rhetoric in public policy. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 13(1), 121–143. https://doi.org/10.1353/rap.0.0142
- Beall, L., Myers, T. A., Kotcher, J. E., Vraga, E. K., & Maibach, E. W. (2017). Controversy matters: Impacts of topic and solution controversy on the perceived credibility of a scientist who advocates. Plos One, 12(11), Article 0187511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187511
- Besley, J. C., McCright, A. M., Zahry, N. R., Elliott, K. C., Kaminski, N. E., & Martin, J. D. (2017). Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships. Plos One, 12(4), Article 0175643. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175643
- Besley, J. C., Zahry, N. R., McCright, A., Elliott, K. C., Kaminski, N. E., & Martin, J. D. (2019). Conflict of interest mitigation procedures may have little influence on the perceived procedural fairness of risk-related research. Risk Analysis, 39(3), 571–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13182
- Bray, D., & von Storch, H. (2017). The normative orientations of climate scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(5), 1351–1367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9605-1
- Carvalho, A., & Peterson, T. R. (2009). Discursive constructions of climate change: Practices of encoding and decoding. Environmental Communication, 3(2), 131–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030902935434
- Ceccarelli, L. (2011). Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228. https://doi.org/10.1353/rap.2010.0222
- Chivers, T. (2019). Does psychology have a conflict-of-interest problem? Nature, 571(7763), 20–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02041-5
- Cloud, D. (2019). The rise of the gay warrior: Rhetorical archetypes and the transformation of identity categories. Discourse & Communication, 13(1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481318801626
- Elliott, K. C., McCright, A. M., Allen, S., & Dietz, T. (2017). Values in environmental research: Citizens’ views of scientists who acknowledge values. Plos One, 12(10), e0186049. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186049
- Fiske, S. T., & Dupree, C. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(4), 13593–13597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111
- Gigante, M. E. (2015). A portrait of exclusion: The archetype of the scientist at work in life magazine. Rhetoric Review, 34(3), 292–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2015.1040305
- Gillis, J., & Schwartz, J. (2015, February 25). Deeper ties to corporate cash for doubtful climate researcher. The New York Times, A1.
- Hayhoe, K., & Farley, A. (2009). A climate for change: Global warming facts for faith-based decisions. FaithWords.
- Haynes, R. D. (2016). Whatever happened to the ‘mad, bad’ scientist? Overturning the stereotype. Public Understanding of Science, 25(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514535689
- Hmielowski, J. D., Feldman, L., Myers, T. A., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2014). An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 23(7), 866–883. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513480091
- Jackson, S. (2008). Predicaments of politicization in the debate over abstinence-only sex education. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation (pp. 215–230). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- Jacobi, D., & Schiele, B. (1989). Scientific imagery and popularized imagery: Differences and similarities in the photographic portraits of scientists. Social Studies of Science, 19(4), 731–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019004014
- Jasanoff, S. (1994). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press.
- Killingsworth, M. J., & Palmer, J. S. (2012). Ecospeak: Rhetoric and environmental politics in America. Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1992).
- Kotcher, J. E., Myers, T. A., Vraga, E. K., Stenhouse, N., & Maibach, E. W. (2017). Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environmental Communication, 11(3), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736
- LaFollette, M. C. (1990). Making science our own: Public images of science, 1910–1955. University of Chicago Press.
- Lewandowsky, S., Oreskes, N., Risbey, J. S., Newell, B. R., & Smithson, M. (2015). Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community. Global Environmental Change, 33, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.013
- Macfarlane, B., & Cheng, M. (2008). Communism, universalism and disinterestedness: Re-examining contemporary support among academics for Merton’s scientific norms. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9055-y
- Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2009). Global warmings’ six Americas 2009: An audience segmentation analysis. Yale Project on Climate Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication.
- Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
- Nauroth, P., Gollwitzer, M., Kozuchowski, H., Bender, J., & Rothmund, T. (2017). The effects of social identity threat and social identity affirmation on laypersons’ perception of scientists. Public Understanding of Science, 26(7), 754–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516631289
- Penman, W., & Cloud, D. (2018). How people make sense of Trump and why it matters for racial justice. Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric, 8(1/2), 107–136.
- Pielke, R. A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press.
- Roberts-Miller, P. (2009). Dissent as “aid and comfort to the enemy”: The rhetorical power of naïve realism and ingroup identity. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 39(2), 170–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773940902766763
- Smith, B. L. R. (2008). Can science policy advice be disinterested? Issues in Science and Technology, 24(4), https://issues.org/br_smith/
- Syfert, C. J. (2019). Expert advocacy: The public address of scientists in a post-truth society [Doctoral dissertation], University of Washington.
- van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2015). The history of the argumentum ad hominem since the seventeenth century. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse: Fifty contributions to the development of pragma-dialectics (pp. 611–629). Springer.
- Voosen, P. (2014, November 3). Striving for a climate change. The Chronicle Review. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Seeking-a-Climate-Change/149707
- Walton, D. N. (1998). Ad hominem arguments. University of Alabama Press.
- Walton, D. N. (2006). Poisoning the well. Argumentation, 20(3), 273–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9013-z
- Weber, M. (1974). Max Weber on universities: The power of the state and the dignity of the academic calling in Imperial Germany (E. Shils, Trans.). The University of Chicago Press.
- Wunderlich, R. (1974). The scientific ethos: A clarification. The British Journal of Sociology, 25(3), 373. https://doi.org/10.2307/589402