Ethical Review for Nuclear Power: Inspiration from Bioethics

Hoedl, Seth A.

doi:10.1007/978-94-6265-463-1_13

Seth A. Hoedl³

516 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

Nuclear power on a scale large enough to make a difference to climate change presents a profound ethical dilemma. While nuclear can help mitigate climate change and help meet the need for energy worldwide, it also has significant social and environmental impacts. Conventional energy decision making and analysis, often based on quantitative cost-benefit comparisons, struggles with this dilemma, in part because of the challenges of pricing non-economic impacts. Yet, in order for new nuclear technologies, such as advanced fission and fusion-based reactors, to be an option to address climate change and energy poverty, technologists, funders and policy makers must successfully navigate this dilemma. This chapter offers practical suggestions for such navigation. Given bioethics’ routine, century-long history of application, its focus on non-economic impacts, and its adoption worldwide, even if such adoption is controversial, the chapter looks to the process of bioethical review for inspiration. The chapter argues that an ethical review process (i) that is based on multiple ethical perspectives with input from a range of diverse and independent stakeholders; and (ii) that adopts technical limits as compromise, could facilitate the development and deployment of advanced nuclear technologies. In support of this argument, the chapter discusses the bioethical review process through three case studies of controversial technologies in the U.S., UK, Malaysia and Singapore. The chapter then uses sixteen global ethical perspectives to identify seven impacts of nuclear technologies that are likely to arise in ethical review, including energy access and conservation, human health and safety, global peace and security, future generations, land and the environment, community solidarity, and distributions of benefits and harms. For each impact, the chapter offers a brief up-to-date assessment and comparison to renewable alternatives.

President, Chief Science Officer and Co-Founder, Post Road Foundation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 99.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 219.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Hansen et al. 2015.
2.
Jamieson 2011.
3.
Sonter et al. 2020; Luderer et al. 2019.
4.
Hoedl 2019.
5.
Devos et al. 2008.
6.
Staudenmaier 2017.
7.
Conger 2019.
8.
Sovacool et al. 2016.
9.
Bethem 2019, at 23, 44.
10.
Nordhaus and Lovering 2019; Asmundsson and Wade 2019.
11.
Sovacool et al. 2016.
12.
Kelman 1981.
13.
Mac Lean 1980, at 4–5.
14.
Id. at 6.
15.
Id. at 4.
16.
Wenz 1983, at 2.
17.
Mac Lean 1980, at 5.
18.
According to Pope Francis, ‘Decisions must be made based on a comparison of the risks and benefits foreseen … ‘. Francis 2005, para 184. A fatwa pertaining to a proposed nuclear power plant in Indonesia asked whether the positive aspects of the proposed plant predominated over the negative aspects in accordance with the Islamic principle of ‘dar’u almafasid muqaddam “ala jalb al-mashalih”’. Tanter 2007.
19.
Hoedl 2019.
20.
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, UN Doc A/CONF.229/2017/8 (7 July 2017), UNGA Res 72/31 (11 December 2017). For discussions of the treaty, see Fleck 2019; Rietiker 2019.
21.
Smith and High 2017.
22.
Myser 2011, at xx.
23.
Chattopadhyay and De Vries 2008, 2013; Bracanovic 2013; ten Have and Gordijn 2013.
24.
Briggle and Mitcham 2012, at 309.
25.
Jonsen 2001, at 113.
26.
Diné Citizens Against Ruining our Environment 2008.
27.
Tanter 2007.
28.
See U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee, https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/index.html.
In the Tuskegee study, for nearly 40 years, U.S. government physicians observed, but did not treat, poor African Americans who had become infected with syphilis. See also Briggle and Mitcham 2012, at 140–144.
29.
Id. at 134–140.
30.
Hyun et al. 2016; Cavaliere 2017.
31.
UNESCO 2010.
32.
Watts 2012.
33.
Warnock 1984.
34.
Edgar and Rothman 1995.
35.
U.K. Department of Health 2011.
36.
UNESCO 2005, Article 19.
37.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences 2016.
38.
Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, opened for signature 4 April 1997, ETS No 164 (entered into force 1 December 1999) (Oviedo Convention), Article 16.
39.
See UNESCO, Assisting Bioethics Committees (ABC), https://en.unesco.org/themes/ethics-science-and-technology/assisting-bioethics-committees.
40.
World Health Organization 2018, at 5.
41.
Rennie and Mupenda 2011; Myser 2011; Chattopadhyay and De Vries 2013.
42.
For example, in many predominantly Muslim states, bioethical review does not rely on public participation, but rather, on Islamic jurisprudence. Alali et al. 2017.
43.
U.S. National Institutes of Health (1972) NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, p. 7. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/historical/1972_04_14_Vol_01_No_18.pdf.
44.
U.S. National Research Act of 1974, Section 212(a).
45.
Dixon-Woods and Ashcroft 2008.
46.
The UNESCO Declaration calls for ‘persons and professionals concerned and society as a whole’ to be engaged and ‘opportunities for informed pluralistic public debate, seeking the expression of all relevant opinions’. UNESCO 2005, Article 18.
47.
In the U.K., 30% of REC members must be non-scientists. U.K. Department of Health 2011, para 4.2.7.
48.
National Institutes of Health (2014) Tools for the Identification, Assessment, Management, and Responsible Communication of Dual Use Research of Concern: A Companion Guide, https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/durc-companion-guide.pdf, at 30.
49.
Emanuel et al. 2000, at 2706.
50.
Sugarman and Sulmasy 2001, at 2.
51.
Warnock 1985.
52.
Hyun et al. 2016; Cavaliere 2017.
53.
Bagheri et al. 2017, at 24.
54.
Ethics Advisory Board, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare 1979.
55.
Warnock 1984, 1985.
56.
Ethics Advisory Board, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare 1979, at i; Warnock 1984, at ii–iii.
57.
Ethics Advisory Board, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare 1979, at 81.
58.
Cavaliere 2017, at 3.
59.
Hyun et al. 2016; Cavaliere 2017.
60.
Hyun et al. 2016; Cavaliere 2017.
61.
Hyun et al. 2016.
62.
Bioethics Advisory Committee Singapore 2002, at 4.
63.
The BAC, a committee of physicians, medical researchers, lawyers, religious leaders and bioethicists, is charged by Singapore’s government to examine ‘ethical, legal and social issues arising from research on human biology and behaviour and its applications’. The BEC is an advisory body, it has no regulatory powers and it has discretion to review issues of its own choice. https://www.bioethics-singapore.gov.sg/who-we-are/what-we-do/.
64.
Bioethics Advisory Committee Singapore 2002, at 10.
65.
Bioethics Advisory Committee Singapore (2001) Human Stem Cell Research Consultation Paper. https://www.bioethics-singapore.gov.sg/files/publications/consultation-papers/human-stem-cell-research.pdf.
66.
Bioethics Advisory Committee Singapore 2002, at 12.
67.
Id. at G-1-1.
68.
Id. at 12.
69.
Id. at 13.
70.
Lim and Ho 2003.
71.
Id.
72.
Id; Walters 2004.
73.
Bioethics Advisory Committee Singapore 2002, at vii–viii.
74.
Bioethics Advisory Committee Singapore 2015, at 57–58.
75.
A fatwa is a formal interpretation of Islamic law by a recognized authority of Islamic jurisprudence.
76.
Ministry of Health Malaysia 2009, at 46–51; Bin Abdul Aziz et al. 2018.
77.
Bin Abdul Aziz et al. 2018; Sivaraman 2019.
78.
Ministry of Health Malaysia 2009, at 70.
79.
Id., at 65, 70.
80.
The fatwa is silent on how long embryos can be kept alive. Some scholars suggest that Islamic jurisprudence would limit research to embryos younger than 40, rather than 14, days. Id., at 5.
81.
Gopalan et al. 2020.
82.
Bin Abdul Aziz et al. 2018.
83.
Foong 2012.
84.
Wee (2019) Chinese Scientist Who Genetically Edited Babies Gets 3 Years in Prison. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/30/business/china-scientist-genetic-baby-prison.html.
85.
Cohen et al. 2015; Castro 2016.
86.
Cohen et al. 2015, at 180.
87.
See Sciencewise, Mitochondrial replacement, https://sciencewise.org.uk/projects/mitochondrial-replacement/.
88.
Watts 2012.
89.
Castro 2016, at 732.
90.
Cohen et al. 2015, at 179.
91.
Frigo 2018.
92.
Pojman et al. 2016.
93.
For in-depth discussions of religious ecology, see the ten-volume Religions of the World and Ecology series from the Center for the Study of World Religions at the Harvard Divinity School. For an overview of religious perspectives on the environment, see https://fore.yale.edu/Publications/Books/Religions-World-and-Ecology-Book-Series.
94.
Diné Citizens Against Ruining our Environment 2008.
95.
Tanter 2007.
96.
Bethem 2019, at 61, 45–58.
97.
U.N. Sustainable Development Goal 7. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal7. Accessed 8 October 2020.
98.
McCauley et al. 2019.
99.
Qasaymeh et al. 2015, at 59.
100.
Melin 2020, at 42–43.
101.
Aiken 2015.
102.
Qasaymeh et al. 2015, at 62; Gomes 2019.
103.
Future, low-carbon electric grids are expected to be less expensive if they include nuclear power.
104.
Bolinger et al. 2019, at 48.
105.
U.S. Energy Information Administration 2020, at 7.
106.
Bethem 2019, at 87–88.
107.
James 2014, at 49.
108.
Bartholomew 2012, at 97.
109.
Aiken 2015.
110.
Illich 2000.
111.
UNESCO Declaration, Article 4; U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare 1979.
112.
Some communities, such as the Diné, have banned uranium mining due to it being a substance that ‘should not be disturbed’. Diné Citizens Against Ruining our Environment 2008, at 4.
113.
Kharecha and Hansen 2013.
114.
Larsen and Babineau 2020.
115.
Luderer et al. 2019, at 5.
116.
Id.
117.
Ohira et al. 2020.
118.
Moysich et al. 2002.
119.
Hasegawa et al. 2015.
120.
Socolow and Glaser 2009.
121.
The Vatican has been a particularly strong advocate for disarmament. Holy See 2014. Nevertheless, the Vatican is not opposed to nuclear power per se because of its potential to address energy poverty. Gomes 2019.
122.
Glaser and Goldston 2012.
123.
Kalinowski 2004. Note that some types of fusion reactors will not use tritium.
124.
Jassby 2017. Note that some types of fusion-based reactors would not produce a significant neutron flux.
125.
Reactors fueled with low enrichment uranium have a lower proliferation risk than other types. Bodansky 2008, at 548. Fusion reactors are expected to have a far lower proliferation risk. Glaser and Goldston 2012.
126.
Hartigan et al. 2015.
127.
Hoedl 2016.
128.
Socolow and Glaser 2009.
129.
Perkovich and Acton 2009, at 85, 93; Sagan 2009, at 159.
130.
Sanger DE (2020) Trump Budget Calls for New Nuclear Warheads and 2 Types of Missiles. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/10/us/politics/trump-budget-nuclear-missiles.html.
131.
UNESCO 2005, Article 16.
132.
Sovacool et al. 2016.
133.
Jonas 1984; Small 2011, at 56–60.
134.
Bagheri et al. 2017, at 50.
135.
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. Jewish Values on Climate Change & Energy. https://www.rac.org/jewish-values-climate-change-energy.
136.
Bouma-Prediger 2001, at 126.
137.
Tanter 2007.
138.
The Nuclear Energy Agency estimates that a nuclear dominated grid would by 50% less expensive than a renewable dominated grid. Nuclear Energy Agency 2019. A European-focused study estimates that adding nuclear to the European grid would lower future electricity prices by 30%. Zappa et al. 2019. A U.S.-focused study estimates that increasing nuclear from 10 to 40% of the U.S. grid would lower future electricity costs by 10% in the U.S. Williams et al. 2015. Studies that suggest that nuclear power does not lower costs of a very low carbon grid have been controversial. See Clack et al. 2017.
139.
Wenz 1983, at 207.
140.
Bodansky 2008, at 237.
141.
Fountain H (2017) On Nuclear Waste, Finland Shows U.S. How It Can Be Done. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/science/nuclear-reactor-waste-finland.html.
142.
Posiva 2020.
143.
See Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co (SKB), https://www.skb.com/future-projects/the-spent-fuel-repository/.
144.
Stacey et al. 1995; El-Guebaly et al. 2008.
145.
Zucchetti et al. 2018; El-Guebaly et al. 2008.
146.
A traditional 1 GWe fission-based reactor contains 1.3 × 10⁹ kg of concrete and steel. MacKay 2009, at 175.
147.
Modern solar panels weigh about 50,000 kg/MW. See Weckend et al. 2016, at 27.
148.
Bodansky 2008, at 225.
149.
Id.
150.
MacKay 2009, at 173.
151.
Leopold 2016.
152.
Diné Citizens Against Ruining our Environment 2008, at 3.
153.
Bethem 2019, at 88.
154.
Hindu Declaration on Climate Change (2015), http://www.hinduclimatedeclaration2015.org/english; Dwivedi 2006, at 162.
155.
Tucker 2014, at 173–174.
156.
Fox 2014, at 236.
157.
Baharuddin and Musa 2017, at 164.
158.
Bethem 2019, at 87–88.
159.
Vogel 2001.
160.
Sonter et al. 2020; Luderer et al. 2019.
161.
Supra n. 146; Bodansky 2008, at 212–213.
162.
Supra n. 147.
163.
Tanter 2007, at 10.
164.
McDonald et al. 2009.
165.
Ausubel 2007.
166.
Note that an actual solar plant could not power NYC without electric storage and some form of backup generation. In the U.S., the plum exposure zone, the area where evacuation plans must be developed to prepare for an accident, is even larger, at 240 square miles.
167.
Beresford et al. 2020.
168.
Sakauchi et al. 2020.
169.
Fukumoto 2020.
170.
Duff et al. 2020.
171.
Metz 2010; Behrens 2013; Sanusi and Spahn 2020.
172.
Sanusi and Spahn 2020, at 292.
173.
Tanter 2007.
174.
Sanusi and Spahn 2020, at 291.
175.
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare 1979.
176.
Sovacool et al. 2016; McCauley et al. 2019.
177.
Biviano 2018, at 144.
178.
Metz 2010.
179.
Kaplan et al. 2019.

References

Aiken W (2015) The Time to Act is Now: A Buddhist Declaration on Climate Change. https://fore.yale.edu/files/buddhist_climate_change_statement_5-14-15.pdf. Accessed 9 October 2020
Alali K, Serour G, Bagheri A (2017) Challenges in Islamic Bioethics. In: Bagheri A, Alali K (eds) Islamic Bioethics: Current Issues and Challenges. World Scientific, pp 23–32
Google Scholar
Ausubel JH (2007) Renewable and nuclear heresies. International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology 1:229
Google Scholar
Asmundsson J, Wade W (2019) Nuclear Fusion Could Rescue the Planet from Climate Catastrophe, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-28/startups-take-aim-at-nuclear-fusion-energy-s-biggest-challenge
Bagheri A, Campbell A, Taylor C et al (2017) What Islamic Bioethics Offers to Global Bioethics. In: Islamic Bioethics: Current Issues and Challenges. World Scientific, pp 33–55
Google Scholar
Baharuddin A, Musa MN (2017) Environmental Ethics in Islam. In: Islamic Bioethics: Current Issues and Challenges. World Scientific, pp 161–182
Google Scholar
Bartholomew EP (2012) On Earth as in Heaven: Ecological Vision and Initiatives of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Fordham Univ Press
Google Scholar
Behrens KG (2013) Towards an Indigenous African Bioethics. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 6:30
Google Scholar
Beresford NA, Scott EM, Copplestone D (2020) Field effects studies in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone: Lessons to be learnt. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 211:105893
Google Scholar
Bethem J (2019) Reinventing Energy Ethics. Dissertation, Arizona State University
Google Scholar
Bin Abdul Aziz MF, Morrison M, Kaye J (2018) Regulating human stem cell research and therapy in low- and middle-income countries: Malaysian perspectives. New Genetics and Society 37:2–20
Google Scholar
Bioethics Advisory Committee Singapore (2002) Ethical, legal and social issues in human stem cell research, reproductive and therapeutic cloning. https://www.bioethics-singapore.gov.sg/publications/reports/ethical-legal-and-social-issues-in-human-stem-cell-research-reproductive-and-therapeutic-cloning. Accessed 11 September 2020
Bioethics Advisory Committee Singapore (2015) Ethics Guidelines for Human Biomedical Research. Bioethics Advisory Committee. https://www.bioethics-singapore.gov.sg/files/publications/reports/ethics-guidelines-for-human-biomedical-research-full-report.pdf. Accessed 11 Sep 2020
Biviano EL (2018) Catholic Energy Ethics: Commitments and Criteria. Relations 6:143
Google Scholar
Bodansky D (2008) Nuclear energy principles, practices, and prospects, 2nd edn. Springer, New York
Google Scholar
Bolinger M, Seel J, Robson D (2019) Utility-Scale Solar. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl_utility_scale_solar_2019_edition_final.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2020
Bouma-Prediger S (2001) For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for Creation Care, 2nd edn. Baker Books
Google Scholar
Bracanovic T (2013) Against culturally sensitive bioethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 16:647–652
Google Scholar
Briggle A, Mitcham C (2012) Ethics and Science: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press
Google Scholar
Castro RJ (2016) Mitochondrial replacement therapy: the UK and US regulatory landscapes. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 3:726–735
Google Scholar
Cavaliere G (2017) A 14-day limit for bioethics: the debate over human embryo research. BMC Medical Ethics 18:38
Google Scholar
Chattopadhyay S, De Vries R (2008) Bioethical concerns are global, bioethics is Western. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 18:106–109
Google Scholar
Chattopadhyay S, De Vries R (2013) Respect for cultural diversity in bioethics is an ethical imperative. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 16:639–645
Google Scholar
Clack CTM, Qvist SA, Apt J et al (2017) Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114:6722–6727
Google Scholar
Cohen IG, Savulescu J, Adashi EY (2015) Transatlantic lessons in regulation of mitochondrial replacement therapy. Science 348:178–180
Google Scholar
Conger K (2019) San Francisco Bans Facial Recognition Technology, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/us/facial-recognition-ban-san-francisco.html
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (2016) International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. Geneva. https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf
Devos Y, Maeseele P, Reheul D et al (2008) Ethics in the Societal Debate on Genetically Modified Organisms: A (Re)Quest for Sense and Sensibility. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21:29–61
Google Scholar
Diné Citizens Against Ruining our Environment (2008) Energy and Economic Alternatives to the Desert Rock Energy Project. Ecos Consulting. https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/sites/default/files/pl_desertRockAlternatives012308.pdf. Accessed 15 September 2020
Dixon-Woods M, Ashcroft RE (2008) Regulation and the social licence for medical research. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 11:381–391
Google Scholar
Duff A, Hanchant-Nichols D, Bown B et al (2020) A Right Way, Wrong Way and Better Way for Energy Engineers to Work with Aboriginal Communities. In: Bombaerts G, Jenkins K, Sanusi YA, Guoyu W (eds) Energy Justice Across Borders. Springer, pp 45–68
Google Scholar
Dwivedi OP (2006) Hindu Religion and Environmental Well-Being. In: Gotlieb RS (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology. Oxford University Press, pp 160–183
Google Scholar
Edgar H, Rothman DJ (1995) The Institutional Review Board and beyond: Future Challenges to the Ethics of Human Experimentation. The Milbank Quarterly 73:489
Google Scholar
El-Guebaly L, Massaut V, Tobita K, Cadwallader L (2008) Goals, challenges, and successes of managing fusion activated materials. Fusion Engineering and Design 83:928–935
Google Scholar
Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C (2000) What Makes Clinical Research Ethical? JAMA 283:2701–2711
Google Scholar
Ethics Advisory Board, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1979) HEW Support of Research Involving Human In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer. https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/559350/HEW_IVF_report.pdf. Accessed 8 October 2020
Fleck D (2019) The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: Challenges for International Law and Security. In: Black-Branch JL, Fleck D (eds) Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law - Volume IV: Human Perspectives on the Development and Use of Nuclear Energy. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 395–415
Google Scholar
Foong P (2012) The Regulatory Regime for Human Embryonic Stem Cell (HESC) Research in Malaysia: A Critique. The Malaysian Journal of Law and Society 16:53–68
Google Scholar
Fox A (2014) Process Ecology and the “Ideal” Dao. In: Callicott JB, McRae J (eds) Environmental Philosophy in Asian Traditions of Thought. SUNY Press, pp 163–179
Google Scholar
Francis (2005) Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ of the Holy Father Francis On Care For Our Common Home, https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_en.pdf
Frigo G (2018) Energy Ethics: A Literature Review. Relations: Beyond Anthropocentrism 6:177
Google Scholar
Fukumoto M (ed) (2020) Low-Dose Radiation Effects on Animals and Ecosystems: Long-Term Study on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. Springer, Singapore
Google Scholar
Glaser A, Goldston RJ (2012) Proliferation risks of magnetic fusion energy: clandestine production, covert production and breakout. Nuclear Fusion 52:043004
Google Scholar
Gomes R (2019) Holy See calls for boosting peaceful use of nuclear energy. Vatican News. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2019-09/holy-see-gallagher-iaea-conference-nuclear-peace-development.html. Accessed 25 Sep 2020
Gopalan N, Nor SNM, Mohamed MS (2020) Regulation of Stem Cell Technology in Malaysia: Current Status and Recommendations. Science and Engineering Ethics 26:1–25
Google Scholar
Hansen J, Emanuel K, Caldeira K, Wigley T (2015) Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
Hartigan K, Hinderstein C, Newman A, Squassoni SA (2015) A new approach to the nuclear fuel cycle: best practices for security, nonproliferation, and sustainable nuclear energy. Center for Strategic & International Studies. http://csis.org/files/publication/150129_squassoni_nuclear_fuel_cycle.pdf. Accessed 8 February 2016
Hasegawa A, Tanigawa K, Ohtsuru A et al (2015) Health effects of radiation and other health problems in the aftermath of nuclear accidents, with an emphasis on Fukushima. The Lancet 386:479–488
Google Scholar
Hoedl S (2016) Ensuring Peaceful Use via International Licensing of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. In: Black-Branch JL, Fleck D (eds) Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law - Volume III. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 63–112
Google Scholar
Hoedl S (2019) A Social License for Nuclear Technologies. In: Black-Branch JL, Fleck D (eds) Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law - Volume IV: Human Perspectives on the Development and Use of Nuclear Energy. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 19–44
Google Scholar
Holy See (2014) Nuclear Disarmament: Time for Abolition. http://www.fciv.org/downloads/Holy%20See%20Contribution-Vienna-8-DEC-2014.pdf. Accessed 25 September 2020
Hyun I, Wilkerson A, Johnston J (2016) Embryology policy: Revisit the 14-day rule. Nature News 533:169
Google Scholar
Illich I (2000) Energy and Equity. Marion Boyars, London/New York
Google Scholar
James GA (2014) Environment and Environmental Philosophy in India. In: Callicott JB, McRae J (eds) Environmental Philosophy in Asian Traditions of Thought. SUNY Press
Google Scholar
Jamieson D (2011) Energy, ethics, and the transformation of nature. In: Arnold DG (ed) The Ethics of Global Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 16–37
Google Scholar
Jassby D (2017) Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/. Accessed 5 October 2020
Jonas H (1984) The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age. University of Chicago Press
Google Scholar
Jonsen AR (2001) Casuistry and Clinical Ethics. In: Sugarman J, Sulmasy DP (eds) Methods in Medical Ethics. Georgetown University Press, pp 109–126
Google Scholar
Kalinowski MB (2004) International Control of Tritium for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament. CRC Press
Google Scholar
Kaplan L, Nelson J, Tomblin D et al (2019) Cooling a Warming Planet? Public Forums on Climate Intervention Research. ASU Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, Washington, DC. https://cspo.org/research/governance-of-geoengineering-research/project-report/. Accessed 16 June 2020
Kelman S (1981) Cost-Benefit Analysis: An Ethical Critique. Regulation 5:33
Google Scholar
Kharecha PA, Hansen JE (2013) Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power. Environmental Science & Technology 47:4889–4895
Google Scholar
Larsen G, Babineau D (2020) An Evaluation of the Global Effects of Tritium Emissions from Nuclear Fusion Power. Fusion Engineering and Design 158:111690
Google Scholar
Leopold A (2016) Ecocentrism: The land ethics. In: Pojman LP, Pojman P, McShane K (eds) Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application, 7th edn. Wadsworth Publishing, Boston, MA, pp 237–247
Google Scholar
Lim S, Ho C (2003) The Ethical Position of Singapore on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. SMA News 35:14
Google Scholar
Luderer G, Pehl M, Arvesen A et al (2019) Environmental co-benefits and adverse side-effects of alternative power sector decarbonization strategies. Nature Communications 10:5229
Google Scholar
Mac Lean D (1980) Benefit-Cost Analysis, Future Generations and Energy Policy: A Survey of the Moral Issues. Science, Technology, & Human Values 5:3–10
Google Scholar
MacKay DJC (2009) Sustainable Energy–without the Hot Air. UIT
Google Scholar
McCauley D, Ramasar V, Heffron RJ et al (2019) Energy justice in the transition to low carbon energy systems: Exploring key themes in interdisciplinary research. Applied Energy 233–234:916–921
Google Scholar
McDonald RI, Fargione J, Kiesecker J et al (2009) Energy Sprawl or Energy Efficiency: Climate Policy Impacts on Natural Habitat for the United States of America. PLoS One 4:
Google Scholar
Melin A (2020) Distributive Energy Justice and the Common Good. Ethica 6:35–50
Google Scholar
Metz T (2010) African and Western Moral Theories in a Bioethical Context. Developing World Bioethics 10:49–58
Google Scholar
Ministry of Health Malaysia (2009) Guidelines for stem cell research and therapy. https://www.ummc.edu.my/files/ethic/Guideline%20for%20Stem%20Cell%20Research%20and%20Therapy.pdf
Moysich KB, Menezes RJ, Michalek AM (2002) Chernobyl-related ionising radiation exposure and cancer risk: an epidemiological review. The Lancet Oncology 3:269–279
Google Scholar
Myser C (2011) Bioethics Around the Globe. Oxford University Press
Google Scholar
Nordhaus T and Lovering J (2019) Why Advanced Nuclear Reactors May Be Here Sooner Than Many Imagine, https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/why-advanced-nuclear-reactors-may-be-here-sooner-than-many-imagine
Nuclear Energy Agency (2019) The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/nuclear-energy/the-costs-of-decarbonisation_9789264312180-en. Accessed 20 September 2019
Ohira T, Shimura H, Hayashi F et al (2020) Absorbed radiation doses in the thyroid as estimated by UNSCEAR and subsequent risk of childhood thyroid cancer following the Great East Japan Earthquake. Journal of Radiation Research 61:243–248
Google Scholar
Perkovich G, Acton JM (eds) (2009) Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, A Debate. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C.
Google Scholar
Pojman LP, Pojman P, McShane K (2016) Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application. Cengage Learning
Google Scholar
Posiva (2020) Posiva Annual Report, http://www.posiva.fi/files/5122/Posiva_Annual_Report_2019.pdf
Qasaymeh K, Pitsoe V, Nkabinde H (2015) Let nuclear energy boil the kettle of indigent people. Journal of Law, Society and Development 2:48–65
Google Scholar
Rennie S, Mupenda B (2011) The Ethics of Globalizing Bioethics. Ethics in Biology, Engineering and Medicine 2:147–156
Google Scholar
Rietiker D (2019) The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: A Further Confirmation of the Human- and Victim-Centered Trend in Arms Control. In: Black-Branch JL, Fleck D (eds) Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law - Volume IV: Human Perspectives on the Development and Use of Nuclear Energy. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 325–353
Google Scholar
Sagan SD (2009) Shared responsibilities for nuclear disarmament. Daedalus 138:157–168
Google Scholar
Sakauchi K, Taira W, Hiyama A et al (2020) The pale grass blue butterfly in ex-evacuation zones 5.5 years after the Fukushima nuclear accident: Contributions of initial high-dose exposure to transgenerational effects. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology 23:242–252
Google Scholar
Sanusi YA, Spahn A (2020) Exploring Marginalization and Exclusion in Renewable Energy Development in Africa: A Perspective from Western Individualism and African Ubuntu Philosophy. In: Bombaerts G, Jenkins K, Sanusi YA, Guoyu W (eds) Energy Justice Across Borders. Springer, pp 273
Google Scholar
Sivaraman MAF (2019) Ethical Guiding Principles of “Do No Harm” and the “Intention to Save Lives” in relation to Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Finding Common Ground between Religious Views and Principles of Medical Ethics. Asian Bioethics Review 11:409–435
Google Scholar
Small BH (2011) Ethical Relationships Between Science and Society: Understanding the Social Responsibility of Scientists. Dissertation, The University of Waikato
Google Scholar
Smith J, High MM (2017) Exploring the anthropology of energy: Ethnography, energy and ethics. Energy Research & Social Science 30:1–6
Google Scholar
Socolow RH, Glaser A (2009) Balancing risks: nuclear energy & climate change. Daedalus 138:31–44
Google Scholar
Sonter LJ, Dade MC, Watson JEM, Valenta RK (2020) Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity. Nature Communications 11:4174
Google Scholar
Sovacool BK, Heffron RJ, McCauley D, Goldthau A (2016) Energy decisions reframed as justice and ethical concerns. Nature Energy 1:1–6
Google Scholar
Stacey WM, Hertel NE, Hoffman EA (1995) Radioactive waste produced by demonstration and commercial fusion reactors extrapolated from ITER and advanced databases. Fusion Engineering and Design 29:198–206
Google Scholar
Staudenmaier R (2017) Germany’s nuclear phaseout explained, https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-nuclear-phaseout-explained/a-39171204
Sugarman J, Sulmasy DP (2001) Methods in Medical Ethics. Georgetown University Press
Google Scholar
Tanter R (2007) Nuclear fatwa: Islamic jurisprudence and the Muria nuclear power station proposal. Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability, https://nautilus.org/apsnet/nuclear-fatwa-islamic-jurisprudence-and-the-muria-nuclear-power-station-proposal/
ten Have H, Gordijn B (2013) The diversity of bioethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 16:635–637
Google Scholar
Tucker ME (2014) The Relevance of Chinese Neo-Confucianism for the Reverence of Nature. In: Callicott JB, McRae J (eds) Environmental Philosophy in Asian Traditions of Thought. SUNY Press, pp 163–179
Google Scholar
U.K. Department of Health (2011) Governance arrangements for research ethics committees. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213753/dh_133993.pdf. Accessed 30 March 2017
UNESCO (2005) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. https://en.unesco.org/themes/ethics-science-and-technology/bioethics-and-human-rights
UNESCO (2010) National bioethics committees in action. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001895/189548e.pdf. Accessed 9 September 2020
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1979) The Belmont Report. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html. Accessed 21 February 2017
U.S. Energy Information Administration (2020) Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf. Accessed 8 October 2020
Vogel D (2001) How Green is Judaism? Exploring Jewish Environmental Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 11:349–363
Google Scholar
Walters L (2004) Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Intercultural Perspective. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14:3–38
Google Scholar
Warnock M (1984) Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology. U.K. Department of Health & Social Security, London. https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/2608/warnock-report-of-the-committee-of-inquiry-into-human-fertilisation-and-embryology-1984.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2020
Warnock M (1985) Moral Thinking and Government Policy: The Warnock Committee on Human Embryology. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly Health and Society 63:504
Google Scholar
Watts G (2012) Novel techniques for the prevention of mitochondrial DNA disorders: an ethical review. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Novel_techniques_for_the_prevention_of_mitochondrial_DNA_disorders.pdf. Accessed 27 September 2019
Weckend S, Wade A, Heath GA (2016) End-of-Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. International Energy Agency. Accessed 6 October 2020
Google Scholar
Wenz PS (1983) Ethics, Energy Policy, and Future Generations. Environmental Ethics 5:195–209
Google Scholar
Williams DJH, Haley B, Kahrl DF et al (2015) Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States. Sustainable Development Solutions Network and the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations. http://usddpp.org
World Health Organization (2018) Global Network of WHO Collaborating Centres for Bioethics: Progress Report 2016/2017. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/334406. Accessed 9 September 2020
Zappa W, Junginger M, van den Broek M (2019) Is a 100% renewable European power system feasible by 2050? Applied Energy 233–234:1027–1050
Google Scholar
Zucchetti M, Candido L, Khripunov V et al (2018) Fusion power plants, fission and conventional power plants. Radioactivity, radiotoxicity, radioactive waste. Fusion Engineering and Design 136:1529–1533
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1999 Harrison St. STE 1800, Oakland, CA, 94612, USA
Seth A. Hoedl

Authors

Seth A. Hoedl
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

ISLAND, Oxford, UK
Jonathan L. Black-Branch
Cologne, Germany
Dieter Fleck

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hoedl, S.A. (2021). Ethical Review for Nuclear Power: Inspiration from Bioethics. In: Black-Branch, J.L., Fleck, D. (eds) Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law - Volume VI. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-463-1_13

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-463-1_13
Published: 27 July 2021
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-462-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-463-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics