This work is a philosophical analysis of descriptive practices and values in endocrine disruption research. Chapter 1 provides an accessible overview. In Chapter 2, I develop a nonreductionist epistemology of research into the endocrine disrupting properties of the herbicide atrazine. I argue that criteria of adequacy governing descriptive practices in atrazine research serve to help organize and coordinate the activities and contributions of researchers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds. In Chapter 3, I examine the influence of non-epistemic values on terminology choice in endocrine disruption research. Researchers face choices about whether or not to use gendered language to describe the harmful effects of atrazine. I argue that such choices are locations of “inductive risk.” In Chapter 4, I examine traditional “global demarcation” approaches for recognizing science that is problematically value-laden. I argue that global demarcation projects as currently undertaken are unlikely to meet their aims and suggest an alternative approach. This alternative approach reinterprets global demarcation projects as providing prima facie principles of good science. The prima facie principles resulting from such modest demarcation projects are to be integrated with appeals to local criteria of adequacy for scientific practices, and principles of inference for illicit influences of values in science. I illustrate this approach using a case of industry funded pesticide research. In Chapter 5, I argue that choices about whether to be a monist or pluralist about scientific terms depend on the epistemic and nonepistemic goals and values of debate participants. I illustrate by analyzing monism and pluralism about the terms ‘potency’ and ‘endocrine disruptor’ in recent endocrine disruption debates.