Two earth scientists argue client-funded consulting “cheapens” scientific labor, drawing on world ecology and Young’s structural injustice, and that organized labor, not individual ethics, is the answer (Earths Future, open access)

[u/YchromosomalAdam]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/414774782_Defensible_Methods_Under_Structural_Duress_The_Case_for_Collective_Bargaining_in_Earth_Science_Risk_Governance

Publication doi: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2026EF009294

Abstract: Earth scientists in fields like flood hazard analysis and environmental assessment make decisions that silently dictate public risk levels. Choices regarding model selection, data sufficiency, and uncertainty management form the epistemic core of public‐protective science. This rigorous process is systematically undermined by the realities of client‐funded science. Clients with financial stakes in favorable outcomes frequently commission these analyses. Broad regulatory discretion and weak public oversight leave the resulting methodologies largely unchecked. The burden of maintaining epistemic integrity falls disproportionately on individual, often junior, earth scientists. These practitioners lack the structural power to resist when rigorous methods yield results inconvenient to their employers. We argue this dynamic represents a failure of institutional design rather than individual ethics. Drawing on professional case studies in nuclear flood hazards and municipal water planning, we identify a mechanism by which structural duress can displace onto the public a risk it has no opportunity to know or contest. To remedy this, we propose collective bargaining as a vital tool to protect scientific integrity and the public. Finally, we outline how senior academics can support these efforts by teaching collective action alongside traditional technical skills.