Shikhar Dhingra

Rhetorical Analysis Essay

Rom Stevens’ literature review on ‘Routes of Opioid Analgesic Therapy in the

Management of Cancer Pain’ reviews various papers on drug delivery routes. Written in a very

professional style, this paper from the ‘Cancer Control’ journal has a simple format consisting of

nine sections, each describing a different drug delivery method and its effectiveness. Focused

on a very similar topic, Jenna Lawrence’s ‘Making drugs work better: four new drug delivery

methods’ is an online newspaper article published on the Royal Pharmaceutical Journal’s

website. Not unlike Stevens’ literature review, this article is written in a professional tone, and

structured into four sections, each describing a new drug delivery method. Although the content

of these two texts is very similar, they both have a very different usage of “scientific rhetoric”.

The way Stevens and Lawrence express their ideas differs tremendously, which creates

distinction in the way that each paper is read and understood.

The most obvious contrast between these two texts is the intended audience. The

literature review by Stevens is aimed towards doctors and medical health professionals. In fact,

on the first page of his article, Stevens says “This information is important in assisting the

physician choose the most efficacious, cost-effective, and user-friendly option for each patient

with cancer pain” (Stevens, 133). Later in the article, Stevens says that the reader must be able

to conduct “administration of opioids” and know how to “closely follow patients” (Stevens, 140),

which are things only a trained medical professional would be able to do. Stevens also regularly

uses obscure words and in general a very complicated vocabulary that a layman would not be

able to understand, but a doctor would be very familiar with. Lawrence’s article on the other

hand, like most newspaper articles, is aimed at the general public. Throughout the article,

Lawrence uses analogies to make the complicated methods easier to understand. For example,

to explain the new method of ultrasound-guided delivery, Lawrence compares the drug to “a

sand ball” that “doesn’t break apart in the body” unless induced to do so by the ultrasound
(Lawrence). The vocabulary that Lawrence uses is also very simple and easy to understand

with no big words that are only understood by experts. Stevens’ purpose for writing his review is

to create a concise yet informative document that doctors could use to help treat their patients,

and this is clear from his writing style. Lawrence’s purpose for writing this review is to inform the

general public of new scientific breakthroughs that may affect their lives. Here we can see again

that although the content of both the papers is on drug delivery, it is the way that they are

written that determines their audience.

It is clear to see that these papers were written for different audiences, but a subtler

difference between them is in their use of language. It is easy to say that the writing style of

these two papers is the same; after all both of these papers are written in the third person and

with an active voice. However, the underlying tone of these two texts is very different. The

literature review by Stevens is written in a very scholarly tone and feels like it is intended only to

pass on information, not waste valuable space trying to entertain the reader. Stevens makes

direct and concise statements like “This article addresses the variety of delivery options for

opioids” without attempting to add any flair to them (Stevens, 133). This writing style really

makes sense when you consider the audience for this paper mentioned in the previous

paragraph. The people who will read this paper are mostly doctors likely reading this for

professional reasons rather than leisure, so it is important that the paper conveys its information

quickly and concisely to increase clarity and save its reader some time. Lawrence’s news article

however, has a much more lighthearted tone, and almost reads like an entertainment piece.

Lawrence writes with the complexity of normal speech, making her article much easier to

understand, and uses real-world examples to describe complicated scientific techniques. For

example, when she is describing the manufacturing of drug nanoparticles, she says: “a process

called spray drying is used, similar to freeze drying coffee”, or when she is telling us about the

volume of the drug, she says: “around a third of the volume of a raindrop” (Lawrence). By using
analogies like these and writing in a cheerful tone, not only is she able to explain difficult

concepts to laymen, but she is also able to make her writing more entertaining.

Both the literature review by Stevens and the online newspaper article by Lawrence

inform us about drug delivery methods, but the ways they convey their information are very

different. The different forms of scientific rhetoric used in these texts changes if they are

perceived as serious professional pieces or more entertaining lighthearted pieces. S Michael

Halloran’s description for Watson and Crick’s paper applies here too, because each of these

papers “establishes an ethos, a characteristic manner of holding and expressing ideas”

(Halloran, 39). This “ethos” determines who the paper is read by, what it is used for, and even

how entertaining it is to read. Ultimately, these papers show that the use of rhetoric can be just

as important in scientific writing as in any other field.

 Works Cited

Lawrence, Janna. "Making Drugs Work Better: Four New Drug Delivery Methods."

Pharmaceutical Journal, 14 SEP 2017, Web. Feb 9, 2019 <https://www.pharmaceutical-

journal.com/news-and-analysis/features/making-drugs-work-better-four-new-drug-

deliverynbspmethods/20203530.article>.

Stevens, R. A., and S. M. Ghazi. "Routes of Opioid Analgesic Therapy in the Management of

Cancer Pain." Cancer Control: Journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center 7.2 (2000): 132-41. Web.

Feb 9, 2019.

S. Michael Halloran. “The Birth of Molecular Biology: An Essay in the Rhetorical Criticism of

Scientific Discourse.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 3, no. 1, 1984, p. 70. EBSCOhost,

libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect

%3dtrue%26db%3dedsjsr%26AN%3dedsjsr.465734%26site%3deds-live.