Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
angles, including the perceived polarization of environmental questions as being
ideological; social attitudes and perceptions; costs; and public perception and
understanding of current scientifi c trends. Furthermore, medicine is somehow seen
as more 'value neutral' than the environment and is easy to relate to as the fear of
illness runs deep in all of us. To help transcend this impasse for adopting the precau-
tionary principle in relation to the environment, it is critical that ethical arguments
be kept front and centre when highlighting the likelihood of environmental events
as trends alone will lead to further polarizing and ideological inertia. The language
of EWS ethics needs to focus on preventing harm and suffering, both present and
future, and protecting vulnerable populations.
15.8
The Application of Ethical Principles to EWS
Existing ethical principles must play an important role in guiding the responsible
use of technology in EWS. Thus far, we have discussed ethics in more narrow terms,
and we have chosen 'clinical ethics', or the ethics of the person, as our ethical point
of reference. Yet, the ethical principles guiding human research, after all, are
grounded in the same recognition of the dignity of the person as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, which holds relevance, and helps form the basis, for
the development of EWS. Although EWS is not human research, they do share sig-
nifi cant commonalities in that both gather information in a systematic way, with the
goal of generalizing fi ndings with the purpose of benefi ting, protecting and enrich-
ing human life. There is, therefore, a strong ethical foundation in global governance
and policy as it relates to EWS.
Internationally, three key documents frame research ethics. In 1949, the Nuremberg
Code was drafted as a means to protect human research subjects; it includes expecta-
tions of informed consent, voluntary participation, subject safety and recognition
that the benefi ts of research participation should be proportional to the risks. The
1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its revisions built on the Nuremberg Code to
emphasize the well-being and security of participants, the expectation of freely given
informed consent, the right to access research results and the public dissemination of
research results (Pham and Vinck
2012
). Most salient to EWS is the Universal
Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (1985), which builds on the fi rst two
declarations. It further asserts the rights of participants and the general population to
benefi t from advances in science and technology, the duty to obtain informed con-
sent, the need to balance scientifi c benefi ts with harm and the application of the right
to privacy (Pham and Vinck
2012
). In human research, knowledge of risk and benefi t
is integral to the consent process. EWS goes beyond acceptance of risk to include
monitoring services, warning dissemination, communication and emergency
response. Common to both EWS and human research, however, are strategies to
assess and respond to the risk of vulnerable populations. In essence it is hypocritical to
acknowledge human rights in one area, while simultaneously ignoring them in another.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search