Scientific argument without a scientific consensus: Rachel Carson's rhetorical strategies in the Silent Spring debates

ABSTRACT This article examines Rachel Carson's rhetoric following the 1962 publication of Silent Spring. Although she had generated a fierce controversy, Carson could not rely on a scientific consensus to defend her arguments. As the author of this article argues, she turned to a series of interrelated strategies necessitated by the fact that controversy over pesticides was legitimate. Carson argued that the pesticide issue was moral, exigent, and corrupted by corporate interests. Rather than cloistering debate to scientific professionals, she granted the public autonomy to engage and form scientific arguments. In addition to extending scholarship on Rachel Carson, this article contributes to historical and contemporary understandings of environmental controversy. When an issue is contested within the scientific community, framing debate as open and promoting audience participation may be necessary – and perhaps effective – rhetorical strategies.