Paper short abstract:

Based on the Arica Victims v. Boliden Mineral case, this proposal explores two ways of epistemic corruption, showing that it emerges not only when scientists let themselves be governed by corporate interests, but also when experts try to keep an extreme emphasis on objectivity and impartiality.

Paper long abstract:

As noted by STS and environmental justice scholars, science is strategically used by big corporations that profit from causing harm to people and the environment. From ‘big tobacco’ to oil multinationals, private firms suspected of causing socioenvironmental harm resort to the authority of science to produce the evidence they need to counter or delay public regulation. Accordingly, is not difficult to relate epistemic corruption to the image of scientists willing to accommodate their studies and findings to corporate interests. Nevertheless, epistemic corruption can also take less obvious forms. Based on the Arica Victims v. Boliden Mineral case, in which 796 low-income Chileans sued a Swedish mining corporation for the mismanagement of 20,000 tonnes of toxic waste in northern Chile, this proposal explores two ways of epistemic corruption. The first one involves two scientists working for a major consultancy firm in charge of producing the evidence required to deny a causal link between the toxic waste and the health damages alleged by the plaintiffs. The second one involves a reputed Chilean lawyer who, despite his profile as a left-wing public intellectual, was willing to testify in the trial for the corporation’s defense. The proposal contributes to a more complex understanding of epistemic corruption, showing that it emerges not only when scientists sacrifice their independence to serve corporate interests, but also when experts try to keep an extreme emphasis on objectivity and impartiality.