Shark Finning: Abominable or Manageable?

A biologist and a lawyer walk into a bar The bartender, after turning to prepare their

drinks, loses his footing and tumbles to the ground. When the two academics were asked to

explain the incident to the paramedics, the biologist explained his reasoning to determine that the

fall was a mistake. The lawyer on the other hand, dramatically insisted that the tumble was

caused by intolerable, hazardous working conditions. Even when concerning the same topic or

event, individuals from differing disciplines can shape situations in various ways. This contrast

can be exemplified by more than just fictitious bar scenarios however. Take for example, the

shaping of controversial topics such as shark finning in the journals of various academics. A

legal professional's journal, such as Crystal Greens AN INTERNATIONAL SOS (SAVE OUR

SHARKS): HOW THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK SHOULD BE USED TO

SAVE OUR SHARKS will use persuasion techniques to convince readers that a finning

intervention is undoubtedly crucial while a biologists such as Andrew Fieldss A Novel

Mini-DNA Barcoding Assay to Identify Processed Fins from Internationally Protected Shark

Species will use experimentation to show that finning is an act that can be regulated.

As a legal professional, mastering the art of persuasion is essential in order to pass laws,

win cases, and defend those in need of defense. The necessity of persuasive skills is apparent

when considering the audience in which a legal professional such as Green, is writing to. Within

the topic of shark finning, environmental conventions, protection agencies, judges, juries,

legislators, and other lawyers can be expected to read her journal. To account for her broad

audience, Green must use multiple persuasive approaches in order to motivate all of her readers
to support her argument. The most apparent method of persuasive argumentation in her journal is

the redundant use of extremely impactful language and statistics. For example, in her opening

paragraph she begins to establish her argument by stating that, an estimated 100 million sharks

are killed every year(701). Immediately following statistics like these, Green will continue by

explaining the cruelty and wastefulness of shark finning. These outrageous numbers and

potent words are purposely included with the intention to make the audience feel a certain way:

astonished, disgusted, or ashamed. Greens argument appeals to these heart-wrenching emotions

in order to create a particular vulnerability within her audience. Like any good legal professional,

she utilizes that vulnerability in order to convince the reader that legal action is necessary to

prevent unimaginable consequences.

However, more often than not, legal professionals cannot effortlessly win over an entire

law court by simply introducing a topic melodramatically. To account for this, a legal academic

must attempt to persuade even those with directly opposing views by including statements that

appeal to both sides of the argument. Green exemplifies this tactic by first presenting an

understanding of the opposing view as she states, This Article is not meant to criticize Asian

cultural practices, or...demand that shark fin soup should be banned. People around the world

have the absolute right to honor their culture as they see fit (703). Text like this is inserted by

the author in order to gain the trust of those who are least likely to initially share her opinion.

Green then continues by saying that meaningful change will only come if differences of opinion

can be bridged through compromise (704). Together these lines serve the purpose to not only

gain the trust of those against her but to introduce and provide logic in the idea of compromise.

She eventually follows with all the constructive aspects of her argument in order to sway even
the least suspecting audience member to join her beliefs. Since these writing techniques are used

as the method to convince even pro-finning readers that drastic legal changes are necessary,

Greens mastery of persuasive skills is therefore what makes her an effective advocate for shark

conservation in the legal discipline.

In comparison, individuals in the biological discipline use experimental evidence and

scientific analysis to persuade their audience to accept that their results provide a further

discovery in their field of study. In Fieldss journal for example, he shares his methods of

identifying the origin of marketed shark fins through DNA processing in order to convince his

readers that his findings can be utilized to regulate the act of finning. A fundamental aspect of

the convincing nature of Fields journal comes the the argumentation by logic which is

introduced in the methods section of his journal. In this section, Fields states that PCR was

performed in a volume of 50 uL, which included 1 uL of the extracted genomic DNA, 10 pmol

of each forward and reverse primer, 1X PCR buffer, 200 uM dNTPs, and 1 unit of HotStar Taq

Polymerase (3). The inclusion of statements like these provide the reader with a step by step

guideline of how the experiment was performed so it can be reproduced for accuracy

verification. Biologists include this type of evidence in their academic journals in order to

persuade their audience that their results are accurate, logical, and credible. Therefore, Fields use

of this tactic provides a basis from which his readers can accept his conclusions and regulatory

implications.

However, the audience of biological journals such as Fieldss is often limited to other

scientists researching that field of study. Therefore, the establishment of authority is perhaps a

biologists most important writing technique. In order to gain a sense of credibility from his
peers, Fields explains his novel findings through the use of scientific jargon such as

polymorphism, Taq polymerase, and PCR. Since language like this is only understood by

those in the discipline of biology, the presence of these words in Fieldss journal institutes his

belonging to the academic community and therefore increases the reliability of his results. This

establishment of authority is what allows Fields to persuade his audience that his experimental

evidence can be used to manage the shark fin market.

In conclusion, the shaping of topics such as shark finning can differ greatly from one

academic discipline to the next. While Green, as a legal professional, utilized various persuasive

techniques to convince the audience that standards of shark finning must be changed in order to

reduce its abominable effects, Fields, as a biologist, persuades his audience through experimental

evidence that his procedure is an accurate method for regulating shark finning. All and all, the

analysis of these two journals provides the deduction that legal professionals use emotional and

logical persuasion to call for changes in legislation while biologists focus on logic and authority

to advance scientific knowledge and resolve global issues.

 Works Cited

Fields, Andrew. "A Novel Mini-DNA Barcoding Assay to Identify Processed Fins from

Internationally Protected Shark Species." PLoS ONE 10.2 (2015): 1-10. Academic Search

Complete [EBSCO]. Web. 6 June 2017.

Green, Crystal. "AN INTERNATIONAL SOS (SAVE OUR SHARKS): HOW THE

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK SHOULD BE USED TO SAVE OUR

SHARKS.." Pace International Law Review 27.2 (2015): 701-28. Academic Search

Complete [EBSCO]. Web. 6 June 2017.