Stakeholder #3

The final major stakeholder in the arsenic bacterium controversy is the original publisher of the study, Science magazine. Overall, although there are overlapping claims with the other stakeholders, the claims made by Science are generally more opinion based, less biased in terms of who is correct and who is not, and more personality centered. This will become more clear as you continue to read.

Paul, Frank R. "Science and Mechanics Nov 1931 Cover". 2/7/2016 via wikimedia. Public domain. 

The magazine as a whole is a science-based text with publications from scientists across the world. To the rest of the world, Science is a credible source, as it publishes content with factual and statistic-based information with little bias.

Claim 1

Though Science never actually posts its own opinion or that of any of its authors, what it chooses to post or not to post says much about its claims as a magazine. In this article, the claims made by Science include those of the other stakeholders; that there is a life-changing bacterium that can survive with arsenic in the place of phosphorus.

These claims are, as previously stated, not backed by sufficient data or logic and the majority of the appeal comes from the excitement of new developments and discoveries.

Claim 2

Though this claim is not as specific as those preceding, this article states that "Science publishe[d] multiple critiques of arsenic bacterium paper." In posting the critiques of the original publication, Science is making the claim that there are possible errors or misconducts in the original paper. Because of this, the magazine asserts its lack of bias and encourages its audience to engage in different ideas.

By appealing to the logic and the emotion of its audience through honesty and a continuous flow of information, Science increases its credibility and the likelihood that readers will believe that what they are reading in the magazine is the truth.

Claim 3

Finally, Science magazine posted an interview with Felisa Wolfe-Simon shortly after the criticism of her paper began to surface. In the interview, little is said from the interviewer, as Wofle-Simon utilizes the majority of the time to convey to the audience that her and her team are working hard to continue research on the bacterium, and that her intentions have always been to be a part of something greater within the science community; that she is not selfishly inclined.

By both conducting and publishing the interview, Science magazine is making the claim that Wolfe-Simon is a decent human being, not knowingly responsible for the false information that confused and frustrated many in the weeks preceding. They appeal to the emotions of readers across the globe by displaying forgiveness amidst a plethora of negative attacks towards Wolfe-Simon.