Short abstract:

With the concept of argumentative chain alignment, we analyse how nanoscientists claim new particles, highlight some selected properties, alleged biochemical processes, and useful applications. We demonstrate how claims are realigned over time using quantitative and qualitative text analysis.

Long abstract:

In recent decades, nanoscientists have announced many new nanoparticles, made from varying materials, in varying shapes, sizes etc. They name and rename them, claim and highlight particular features and uses, creating argumentative chains that link chemistry to application in various and changing ways. We conceptualise these recategorizations as argumentative realignments, based on earlier studies by, among others, Bastide and Callon. By aligning a particular chemical structure, chemical or physical property, process and application, some researchers argue that the particles they produce are useful in a particular way. Over time, elements of these chains get relabelled and new connections are made, steering the development of new particles, or simply repurposing old ones.

To see if and how this alignment may change over time, we track parts of the argumentative chain in scientific articles, using a case study: Spherical Nucleic Acids. Using two key publications in the development of these particles as entries, we analysed abstracts and citation contexts and compare them over time, tracking particular terms used in the argumentative chain. To differentiate between the original inventors of these particles and how other researchers pick up parts of argumentative chains, we compared self-citations with citations by others.

The argumentative chain can also be used as a way to map error allegations. Criticism can occur at any part of the argumentative chain. For example, an opponent could argue that a claimed physical or chemical property is not actually present, or that certain links in the argumentative chain are skipped.