Objectivity is widely recognized as a fundamental value in the sciences. Yet objectivity may be deployed as a filter or screen that discourages scientists from reflecting on the political consequences of their work. This article examines the relationship between scientific commitment to objectivity and recent critiques of the influence of corporations on research. It does so by analysing legal documents and examples of ‘life writing’, including a prominent environmental sociologist’s candid reflections on his decision to consult for Exxon after 1989 Valdez oil spill in Alaska. The article considers how objectivity may facilitate participation in research intended to promote doubt and uncertainty about the harm caused by corporations. It asks whether such decisions are better understood as unavoidable blind spots or examples of wilful blindness.
BeckerH (1967)
Whose side are we on?Social Problems14(3): 239–247.
3.
BensonPKirschS (2010)
Capitalism and the politics of resignation. Current Anthropology51(4): 459–486.
4.
BrandtAM (2007) The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product that Defined America.
New York:
Basic Books.
5.
BurawoyM (2005)
For public sociology. American Sociological Review70: 4–28.
6.
CandeaM, et al. (2105) Introduction: Reconsidering detachment. In: CandeaMCookJTrundleC andYarrowT, Detachment: Essays on the Limits of Relational Thinking.
Manchester:
Manchester University Press, pp. 1–34.
7.
CarstenJDaySStaffordC (2018)
Reason and passion: The parallel worlds of ethnography and biography. Social Anthropology26(1): 5–14.
8.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) Supreme Court of the United States (558 U.S. 310).
9.
DastonL (1992)
Objectivity and the escape from perspective. Social Studies of Science22(4): 597–618.
DumitJ (2005)
The depsychiatrisation of mental illness. Journal of Public Mental Health4(3): 8–13.
12.
EisenbergT (2001)
Damage awards in perspective: Behind the headline-grabbing awards in Exxon Valdez and Engle. Wake Forest Law Review36: 1129–1155.
13.
Exxon Shipping Co. et al. v. Baker et al. (2008) Supreme Court of the United States (554 U.S. 471).
14.
FreudenburgWR (1992)
Nothing recedes like success: Risk analysis and the organizational amplification of risks. Risk: Issues in Health and Safety3(1): 1–35.
15.
FreudenburgWR (1997)
Contamination, corrosion and the social order: An overview. Current Sociology45(3): 19–39.
16.
FreudenburgWR (2005)
Seeding science, courting conclusions: Reexamining the intersection of science, corporate cash, and the law. Sociological Forum20(1): 3–33.
17.
FreudenburgWR (2008)
Rethinking the threats to scientific balance in contexts of litigation. Environmental Health Perspectives116(1): 142–147.
18.
FreudenburgWRGramlingR (1994) Oil in Troubled Waters: Perceptions, Politics, and the Battle Over Offshore Drilling.
Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
19.
FreudenburgWRGramlingR (2011) Blowout in the Gulf: The BP Oil Spill Disaster and the Future of Energy in America.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
20.
GouldnerAW (1962)
Anti-minotaur: The myth of a value-free sociology. Social Problems9(3): 199–213.
21.
GouldnerAW (1968)
The sociologist as partisan: Sociology and the welfare state. The American Sociologist3(2): 103–116.
22.
GramlingRFreudenburgWR (1992)
The Exxon Valdez oil spill in the context of U.S. petroleum politics. Organization and Environment6(3): 175–196.
23.
HarveyD (1995)
Militant particularism and global ambition: The conceptual politics of place, space, and environment in the work of Raymond Williams. Social Text42: 69–98.
24.
JollyM (ed.) (2001) Encyclopedia of Life Writing: Autobiographical and Biographical Forms, 2 vols.
New York:
Routledge.
25.
KassirerJP (2005) On the Take: How Medicine’s Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
26.
KirschS (2014) Mining Capitalism: The Relationship Between Corporations and their Critics.
Berkeley:
University of California Press.
27.
KrimskyS (2003) Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research?
New York:
Rowman and Littlefield.
28.
LempertR (1999)
Juries, hindsight, and punitive damage awards: Failure of a social science case for change. DePaul Law Review48(4): 867–894.
29.
LiptakA (2008) Damages cut against Exxon in Valdez case. New York Times, 26 June, A1.
30.
MichaelsD (2008) Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
31.
NaderRSmithWJ (1996) No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America.
New York:
Random House.
32.
O’ConnorA (2015) Coca-Cola funds effort to alter obesity battle. New York Times, 10 August, A1.
33.
OreskesNConwayEM (2010) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.
New York:
Bloomsbury.
34.
OrtnerSB (1995)
Resistance and the problem of ethnographic refusal. Comparative Studies in Society and History37(1): 173–193.
35.
PriestG (2002) Introduction: The problem and efforts to understand it. In: SunsteinCR, et al. (eds) Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide.
Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–16.
36.
ProctorRNSchiebingerL (eds) (2008) Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance.
Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
37.
RudelTK (2013) Power in coupled natural and human systems: The intellectual legacy of William R. Freudenburg. In: MaretS (ed.) William R. Freudenburg: A Life in Social Research.
Bingley, UK:
Emerald Group, pp. 45–56.
38.
ScottJ (2005)
Public sociology and the neo-liberal condition. Sosiologisk tidsskrift13: 324–334.
