Captives and Victims: Comment on Scott

Scott, Richards, and Martin (1990; SRM) are almost entirely right in their description of the dilemma in which analysts of scientific controversies find themselves. In particular, they are right in saying that the &dquo;neutral&dquo; analyst will be thought of by participants as being on the side of the underdog. Thus however neutral the analyst intends to be, the work will always be drawn into the debate. Only SRM’s conclusion-that attempting to be neutral is point-less- is wrong. The argument needs to be set in context; the problem they describe is a dilemma of the social sciences as a whole, not just the sociology of scientific knowledge. It is a commonplace among sociologists that attempts at neutral analysis are seen as subversive by dominant ideologies. For example, it is in the interest of states to minimize and disguise social and economic problems. Sociologists who suggest- through the most neutrally intentioned re-search- that things are worse than they appear, are branded as ideologically motivated subversives. This is what gives teeth to the idea that sociology i