In “Contagious Cancer” David Quammen reports on a unique scientific phenomenon. Quammen’s research offers a new perspective for genetic research. He presents a rule breaking concept of contracting cancer from another living being.

Quammen reports on his discoveries using a narrative format. He establishes credibility in the readers by chronologically tracking his progress throughout his investigation of the Tasmanian devils. This format creates both an inviting and captivating structure for a casual audience. Quammen offers his audience a scientific timeline of cancerous research. He further supports his evidence with personal accounts of his data collection. Before reading this article, the average individual would debate the contagiousness of cancer. Quammen empathizes with an average audience by displaying doubt upon first discovering the Tasmanian devils’ facial tumors. With this article Quammen questions the individualistic qualities of cancer. In a similar way Lanier questions the benefits of technological advancement.

In “The First Church of Robotics” Jaron Lanier ponders the consequences of technological advancement. Specifically, Lanier claims the use of artificial intelligence takes away from human kind. Lanier discourages his audience from falling victim to the comforts of artificial intelligence. He points out the simplicity of letting robotics dictate our lives. But instead of supporting a more technological life, Lanier argues against artificial intelligence. He believes incorporating artificial intelligence into everyday life takes away from life itself. His opinion is based on the sense of individualism derived from human decision making. Lanier claims robotics are not as complex as humans are led to believe. They were in fact programmed and created by humans in order to operate similar to humans. Robots are not intelligent and cannot actually think for themselves. Artificial intelligence is merely a concept created to solve a problem or accomplish a task. Lanier encourages a deeper discussion into the future of technology. He believes technology should not make decisions for humankind. Even simple decisions, such as choosing a show on Netflix ought to be based on humanistic desires instead of recommendations from an algorithm. Lanier can accept technology as long as humans do not rely on it. He can accept technology if everyone can accept that their technology is not intelligent. Lanier appears to be fearful of the slippery slope of believing in artificial intelligence.

Quammen questions scientific theory of the past, while Lanier questions scientific theory of the future. Both articles dispute basic scientific principles capable of exceeding a non-specialized audience. However, Quammen uses tangible supporting evidence while Lanier uses his own well thought out opinions based in relatable research. Both articles limit the level of detail throughout their complex subject matter in order to broaden their audience. Both authors aim to educate their audience with unusual subject matter. Quammen and Lanier are driven by research and theory that expands the limit of what is considered commonplace in the scientific world.