Abstract
The move towards engaging ethicists on the laboratory floor as an approach to encouraging responsible research and innovation has focused largely on engaging with scientists actively involved in technology development. The case study described in this chapter adopts a slightly different orientation. The laboratory at the centre of this case study is not engaged in research oriented towards creating technological development, but rather in conducting research on the potential risks posed by technological development. More specifically, it is a laboratory conducting ecotoxicological research to understand the environmental effects of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and their associated pesticide regimes. As such, it performs research specifically intended to inform decision-making on new and emerging technologies, and support responsible use and applications of such technologies. This means that, although it is not research directly aiming to develop new technologies, it is research that actively shapes those technologies through the way it informs industry developments, risk assessment, regulation, governance and public opinion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Andow, D. A. and Hilbeck, A. (2004) ‘Science-based Risk Assessment for Nontarget Effects of Transgenic Crops’, BioScience, 54(7): 637–49.
Cairns Jr, J. (1995) ‘The Genesis of Ecotoxicology’, in Cairns Jr, J. and Niederlehner, B. R. (eds) Ecological Toxicity Testing: Scale, Complexity and Relevance (Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers).
Callicott, J. B. (1986) ‘On the Intrinsic Value of Nonhuman Species’, In: Norton, B.G. (ed.) The Preservation of Species (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Callicott, J. B. (1989) In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy (Albany: State University of New York Press).
Chapman, P. M. (2002) ‘Integrating Toxicology and Ecology: Putting the ‘Eco’ Into Ecotoxicology’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44: 7–15.
Demortain, D. (2011) Scientists and the regulation of Risk: Standardising Control (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
EFSA (2010) ‘Guidance on the Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants’, The EFSA Journal, 8(11): 1–111.
Galison, P. (1997) Image & Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).
Garner, R. (2005) Animal Ethics (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Hargrove, E. (2003) ‘Weak Anthropocentric Intrinsic Value’, in Light, A. and Rolston III, H. (eds) Environmental Ethics: An Anthology (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing).
Jasanoff, S. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Lee, K. (2003) ‘The Source and Locus of Intrinsic Value: A Re-examination’, in Light, A. and Rolston III, H. (eds) Environmental Ethics: An Anthology (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing).
Leopold, A. (1968) A Sand County Almanac (New York: Oxford University Press).
Noer Lie, S.A. and Wickson, F. (2011) ‘The Relational Ontology of Deep Ecology: A Dispositional Alternative to Intrinsic Value?’, in Aaro, A. and Servan, J. (eds) Environment, Embodiment & History (Bergen: Hermes Text).
Norton, B. G. (1991) Toward Unity Among Environmentalists (New York: Oxford University Press).
Norton, B. G. (2003) ‘Environmental ethics and weak anthropocentrism’, in Light, A. and Rolston III, H. (eds) Environmental Ethics: An Anthology (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing).
Norwegian Government (2010) ‘Animal Welfare Act’, available at http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/laws/Acts/animal-welfare-act.html?id=571188 (accessed 22 June 12).
O’Neill, J. (2003) ‘The varieties of intrinsic value’, in Light, A. and Rolston III, H. (eds) Environmental Ethics: An Anthology (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing).
Regan, T. (1983) The Case for Animal Rights (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
Rolston III, H. (2003) ‘Value in Nature and the Nature of Value’, in Light, A. and Rolston III, H. (eds) Environmental Ethics: An Anthology (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing).
Ryder, R.D. (2000) Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism (Oxford: Berg).
Singer, P. (1975) Animal Liberation (New York: Harper Collins Publishers).
Taylor, P. W. (1986) Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Taylor, P. W. (2003) ‘The ethics of respect for nature’, in Light, A. and Rolston III, H. (eds) Environmental Ethics: An Anthology (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing).
Wickson, F. and Wynne, B. (2012a) ‘The Ethics of Science for Policy in the Environmental Governance of Biotechnology: MON810 Maize in Europe’, Ethics, Policy & Environment, 15(3): 321–40.
Wickson, F. and Wynne, B. (2012b) ‘The Anglerfish Deception: The Light of Proposed Reform in the Regulation of GM Crops Hides Underlying Problems in EU Science and Governance’, EMBO Reports, 13(2): 100–5.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Fern Wickson
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wickson, F. (2013). Environmental Ethics in an Ecotoxicology Laboratory. In: van der Burg, S., Swierstra, T. (eds) Ethics on the Laboratory Floor. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137002938_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137002938_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-43407-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-00293-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social Sciences CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)