Some more thoughts that I hope will bring me a step closer to this paper ...
I should have my notes with me as I write this. I don't--they're at home. But perhaps this is better. Writing without them may prompt a thought I didn't have as I was writing them.
When we compare Pasteur's laboratory notebooks with his published work, I believe the pattern is clear. It's not original--Gerald Geison makes the point firmly--but its application to rhetoric, and specifically to Burke's view of science and rhetoric, should be. I don't know yet whether I should limit myself to Pasteur. Research on Lavoisier leads to a similar conclusion, although I'm not sure Lavoisier had quite the rhetorical talents Pasteur did. In any case, it's absolutely clear that when we read a journal article, we're not getting an unbiased description of "the real world out there"; what we see is filtered through the scientist's rhetorical choices.
I think what I need to do next is take a closer look at Burke's Permanence and Change, especially "Perspective as Metaphor," and also Philosophy of Literary Form, notably his discussions of our attitudes toward science.
Plus whatever the heck that leads to.