In 2004, the “Traditional Values Coalition,” a group claiming to represent thousands of Christian churches in the United States, compiled a list of over 150 researchers receiving federal funding that the group complained appealed to “prurient” interests (Brower 2004). The researchers listed (the authors’ team among them) were primarily investigating topics relating to sexuality. The list was presented to the US Congress with a demand that the funding for these scientists be investigated or halted. The list was compiled using key word searches (i.e. “prostitution,” “sex work,” “homosexuality,” etc.) on publicly available information about federally funded research. Scientists defended the legitimacy of their research, and the group was unsuccessful in their demand that this type of work be halted. Yet many researchers in the field of sexual science described ways in which they altered their approach to research work in the wake of this and many other attacks on sexuality research that effectively “chilled” the research environment. Our own research team changed the language we used in research grant abstracts, removing any mention of sex work, homosexuality, or transgender identity in an effort to avoid future negative attention from conservative groups on our work. This is just one small example of the intersection between research science, culture, and sex work and the ways in which our research—and thus, what is “knowable” or documentable—is constrained within the social context of sex work research.