I think it uncontroversial to claim that, like everyone else, the scientist navigates a world of moral choices, human relationships, and political systems that shape and constrain the kinds of work it is possible to do. The scientist must make difficult, inherently ambiguous choices about who and what matters (e.g., is worthy of study), where to make compromises and accept constraints, what counts as evidence, and so on. The scientist must also attend to an often vast network of relationships – with supervisors, administrative staff, collaborators, research participants, journal editors, policy makers, and so on – through which her work is fashioned and disseminated. And that work is bound up in a range of political systems she must navigate, including institutions that hold legal or financial interest, those that provide auxiliary support and oversight, those that administer local resources and responsibilities, and those that arbitrate disciplinary influence and prestige.