PB2A- Silicone Implants

To some, silicone breast implants may be considered sexy and too others, they may be considered disgusting, regardless, Japanese scientists conducted an experiment to measure the amount of silicone leakage in these types of implants, when placed in a liquid solution. This experimental analysis, co-authored by six Japanese scientists from Nippon, Japan, contained various detailed segments that reported their findings. The various segments-- breakdown of analysis by heading, introducing key words, and the use of graphs-- comprised the specific conventions and rhetorical features of this scholarly publication.

Each convention has its purpose-- in any given genre-- and in this analysis, the use of headings for each section was to clarify the topic of the writing which followed it and define the scientific method/process that the scientists proceeded with. A total of five headings were included within the publishing-- abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, and discussions-- and the placement of each of these headings(mentioned in chronological order) also played a role in its purpose. The abstract was mentioned first because it contains the most basic, non-scientific language which an ordinary person could understand. It also summarizes the rest of the analysis very well and comforts the reader in a way to not be distraught by the content matter. The discussion was the last heading and it functioned just like a conclusion, it contained analysis from the scientists who explained why their experiment showed no signs of silicone leakage. The headings clarified and gave details about the project to make it more comprehensible and less awkward for not only ordinary, non-scientific persons, but scientists as well.

Although very concise, the analysis contained a list of keywords which was in bold directly following the abstract. These words were included for the reader to familiarize themselves with them so that they would know exactly what the scientists are talking about when they repeatedly mention them throughout the paper. An alternative purpose for the list of keywords is that the scientists refrained from using high-level vocabulary throughout the rest of the paper-- which they are most likely familiar with-- so that they could attract a wider audience.

Lastly, the inclusion of graphs was an essential part of this experimental analysis. This struck me as the second-most important piece because of the raw data it provides for the reader. The graphs, which measure the concentration of silicone in the solution surrounding the implants, were the exact same throughout each testing period. The scientists tested many different types of implants and none of them showed any signs of leakage. Sending a shocking visual, the graphs portray the facts that silicone leakage does not happen in the lab although the scientists may think that it is due to the absence of accurate environmental conditions, which could not be achieved in the lab. This brings me to the most interesting part of the analysis. In the discussion, it is mentioned that the results found are not accurate because the scientists could not replicate a real-life situation without using humans. This struck me as most interesting, because it is not mentioned until the end of the paper that the findings should not be trusted. Why waste the time of the readers by not saying that their findings are not accurate in the first place?

Although misleading, this analysis does a great job in explaining their method, purpose, and results. While it is a bit of an awkward, controversial, and trending topic, the authors do a great job in presenting the details and removing any non-scientific anxieties. The conventions of the paper led it in a way to remove those anxieties to anyone worried about reading the text.