Ethos, Pathos, Logos Methods of Rhetoric Appeal and Their Usage

Page 1 &2: Read topic: Of the three rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, and logos), which one tends to be left out of scientific writing? Which one tends to elicit the greatest interest from the general reader? What would be an example of an instance when science neglected one of the rhetorical appeals? What was the result?
Then My response: When writing research papers, there are three main rhetorical appeals that have to be looked into, that is, ethos, pathos and logos. Ethos, refers to ethical aspects of a process and largely speaks to the credibility of the persuader. Pathos speaks to the emotions of the readers, while logos appeals to the logic of the readers. Research material in most cases depends on the topic in question and thus these aspects in the research will vary from one research paper to the next. Research that is based in the social settings such as the test of a new drug and research that based on an evaluation of mechanical operation such as the testing of new printing method will have varying significance on the ethos pathos and logos.
Of the three researchers tend to leave out the ethical aspects. This is relative to the fact that, most of the researchers are more concerned about the logical aspect of the research findings with a twist of the emotions from the readers. For the readers, the emotions associated with the research findings are crucial and tend to have some significant impact. At the same time, the logical aspects of the research and the findings presented also have some significant impacts on the readers. It is common for medical research to downplay the impacts that medication under research will have, with respect to the ethical implication of the same.
One of the most horrendous experiments that have ever been conducted in total disregard of the ethical appeal in the United States, is the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment which was conducted between the year 1937 and 1972. In the research, 600 participants of the African American decent were infected with syphilis. According to the study, the participants were informed that they were being treated for bad blood. After the experiment came to light, the president later offered an apology but only seven of the participants were alive to witness the event.
less.
Now both of my peers responses: 
Response 1: 
The three means of persuasion or rhetorical appeals as defined by Aristotle all have a way of persuading an audience. Aristotle believed that of all modes used to persuade by word, there were 3 distinct kinds. Those depending on the character of the speaker (ethics), that which gets the audience in a certain frame of mind (emotions), and proof (reasoning). The one that is most often left out of scientific writing is Pathos, the use of emotions and feelings to persuade. Based on the fact that most readers want to be moved and everyone experiences feelings, this is certainly the most interesting to read and grants the most interest.
An example of an instance when science neglected one of the rhetorical appeals would be the Eugenics programs in the 1930's. This and other forms of "mad science" neglected to consider Ethos, or the right or wrong impacts of breeding out less desirable traits. The result of lack of this appeal was that this movement was later determined to be a violation of basic human rights and these policies eventually led to a loss of diversity and low genetic variation.
Peer response 2: 
I would say that when evaluating scientific writing the appeal to pathos is most frequently left out, as emotions are often completely disregarded when it comes to most scientific discussions and research. Science has very strong tendencies to rely on hard facts, proof, repeatable examples in controlled environments before conclusions are made and presented to the world. Because of this dependence on IMRAD and factual evidence the appeal to pathos is most often irrelevant in scientific discourse. The appeal to ethos on the other hand seems to be the most appealing when regarding scientific discourse and from our readings (page 60-61) “Lessl focuses on ethos in scientific writing, calling the presence that scientist establish “the priestly voice.”” However to the general reader the appeal to pathos is what generates the most interest as is evidenced in just about every best seller list from all sources; suspense, murder and romance which are predominantly “emotional reads” are dominant in the entertainment arena.
From our history we have several examples where science has not quite followed the appeals of ethos and logos and resulted in consequences for the scientific community as mistakes have been revealed. For example, the case of cold fusion claims in Utah in 1989. I believe this to be a case of researchers ignoring the appeal for logos. In this case researchers from the University of Utah hypothesized a conclusion of having achieved cold fusion by interpreting an unexpected result from their research and experimentation. When another researcher from BYU was going through the peer review process on their research he came upon a different explanation for the Utah teams conclusions and research and proposed a collaboration to jointly research the phenomenon to which the Utah team of researchers refused to collaborate on. Once this occurred the two teams Utah and BYU got into a race to publish first resulting in the Utah team publishing their radical claims prematurely without the conclusive research and proof to validate the claim.
NOW what YOU Write: Tell what you liked about each of my peers responses, if you have any questions ask them, if you agree, so on. There are 2 separate posts so there should be two separate responses. 1 page per peer.
Pages 3:Do you think metaphors and analogies are helpful in terms of understanding scientific concepts, or not? What would be some examples?
Page 4: Should popular culture be used to educate people about scientific concepts? Why or why not? What example can you think of to support your points?