Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
If we respect the dignity of human beings with respect to research, then we must
respect their dignity in all other situations. This means providing people with infor-
mation that they can act on when their lives are endangered.
15.9
Bridging the Divide: Ethics and Science
We must not think of science as our saviour when it comes to climate change and
EWS. Science, no matter how erudite, well fi nanced and rigorous, cannot alone
reverse the magnitude of the environmental challenge we are currently facing (Gee
1997 ). Ethical imperatives for preserving, protecting and promoting life and pre-
venting damage, depletion or destruction of human or non-human life and infra-
structure also need to drive us towards the acceptance of change and the greater
acceptance and development of EWS. Planning for EWS requires us to ask impor-
tant questions related to the ethical parameters and their interface with science.
Building EWS, as discussed in this topic, is not dependent on statistical proof alone.
In turn the heart of the ethical question becomes, 'are there moral obligations irre-
spective of statistical proof?' Unfortunately, to date, many environmental initiatives -
and battles - have focused almost exclusively on the interpretation of statistics.
What is clear is that science, and its debates, often masks and can even hinder
underlying ethical questions.
Within the traditional parameters of science lies another fundamental statistical
problem. Because EWS programmes are not widely adopted internationally, solid
EWS data becomes limited in its statistical scope. In turn the smaller the data set and
the greater the natural variation, the less likely it is that EWS effectiveness - from
lives saved, infrastructure protected and economic benefi ts - can be identifi ed. Studies
that assess positive outcomes from EWS infrastructure are critically important to its
expansion and establishment as it demonstrates holding evidence-based validity. This
gap in turn leads to an unfounded sense of acceptance in the status quo, inadvertently
tipping the balance in favour of opposite studies that fail to fi nd environmental risk.
This does not represent sound or ethical public policy. Clearly, such a bias in favour
of generating false negatives can weaken the acceptance of the precautionary princi-
ple. Such concerns are often seen as part of the mechanics of science. Yet these con-
cerns illuminate deeper social and ethical questions. The commonly used word
'uncertainty' needs to be more deeply examined, exploring concepts such as risk,
complexity, indeterminacy, ambiguity, precaution and ignorance.
Social and political attitudes towards the development of technology such as
EWS is essentially a response to a growing tension between science's power to inno-
vate clashing with its inability to wholly predict outcomes and processes of the natu-
ral world. This limitation has given way to what is, sometimes, the reasonable
response of demanding more assessment and exploration. This circumspection is
not only about the validity of forecasting risk, it is also about science and its pre-
sumed powers. A mature democratic approach would not perceive such exploration
Search WWH ::




Custom Search