William Peacock
Opinion Piece 2

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/27/canadian-scientists-lend-support-to-muzzled-us-counterparts

1. The theme is the idea of governments controlling what scientists can and cannot say/show the public. The author first talks about how Canada had a conservative government and they had been controlled for some time. It is mentioned how 25% of scientists said they had been directly approached to change results in data or information. That is obviously a scary stat, and it is shared to make it clear to the reader just how widespread this issue was in 2013 Canada. It then moves towards the United States and the change in administration and how it may affect what scientists can and can’t make public.

2. Yes it is very clear that the author did a good job in getting facts and data that would back up the stance they take. Once again the stat about how many scientists had been approached is used well, and also mentioned how Canada had been affected during the past government. Programs were cut, funding cut, gag orders put in place, which all sounds very similar to what President Trump has been proposing at the start of his administration thus far.

3. I would say that there isn’t exactly a lead or kicker that starts us off with a bang. The most attention grabbing part of it to start is the headline about muzzled US scientists. That was enough to make me wonder at least what they were talking about, and the beginning first few paragraphs were interesting enough to keep me reading. Then it expanded on the argument being made, backed it up with facts, and then closed it in a well-rounded and positive way. The idea of Canadian scientists now helping US scientists like US scientists did for them during the past administration.

4. Yes it is easy to see where the piece is going, and how it got there. New information is introduced well and used in a way that benefits the case while not making it sound choppy. By the end it may have felt like it was dragging on a bit, but that was only because it was trying to beat home the idea of this could now be the reality for the United States under the new administration.

5. Canada in the past decade is used for perspective when comparing what this change could mean for the United States, which makes it easier to see what could actually happen. Facts are then used to back up the case, and that means that you are more likely to think it is accurate because it has data to support it. There aren’t exactly storytelling elements, it is more of telling you how things were, how things are, and how things could be. It does end in a emotional quote where a Canadian scientist talks about how they will support the Americans just like the Americans supported them.

6. It is clear which side of the fence the author is on, why they are on it, and why other people should side with them also. It is important to have all three of these elements, because without all of these aspects the argument lacks strength and might not be nearly as persuasive. When you read this piece, you leave it thinking that our government may be going backwards when it comes to freedom of speech, but you don’t feel without hope thanks to the help from the international scientific community.