Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 503–523 | Cite as

Intrinsic Ethics Regarding Integrated Assessment Models for Climate Management

  • Erich W. Schienke
  • Seth D. Baum
  • Nancy Tuana
  • Kenneth J. Davis
  • Klaus Keller
Article

Abstract

In this essay we develop and argue for the adoption of a more comprehensive model of research ethics than is included within current conceptions of responsible conduct of research (RCR). We argue that our model, which we label the ethical dimensions of scientific research (EDSR), is a more comprehensive approach to encouraging ethically responsible scientific research compared to the currently typically adopted approach in RCR training. This essay focuses on developing a pedagogical approach that enables scientists to better understand and appreciate one important component of this model, what we call intrinsic ethics. Intrinsic ethical issues arise when values and ethical assumptions are embedded within scientific findings and analytical methods. Through a close examination of a case study and its application in teaching, namely, evaluation of climate change integrated assessment models, this paper develops a method and case for including intrinsic ethics within research ethics training to provide scientists with a comprehensive understanding and appreciation of the critical role of values and ethical choices in the production of research outcomes.

Keywords

Research ethics Intrinsic ethics Integrated assessment models Climate management Ethical dimensions of scientific research (EDSR) Optimal growth models 

References

  1. Anderson, E. (1993). Value in ethics and economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. (2009). Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2009/entries/feminism-epistemology/.
  3. Baum, S. (2007). Beyond the Ramsey model for climate change assessments. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2007, 15–21.Google Scholar
  4. Baum, S. (2009). Description, prescription and the choice of discount rates. Ecological Economics, 69(1), 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broecker, W. S. (1991). The great ocean conveyor. Oceanography, 4, 79–89.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, S., & Kalichman, M. W. (1998). Effects of training in the responsible conduct of research: A survey of graduate students in experimental sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(4), 487–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cass, D. (1965). Optimum growth in an aggregative model of capital accumulation. Review of Economic Studies, 32(3), 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards, P. N. (1999). Global climate science, uncertainty, and politics: Data-laden models, model-filtered data. Science as Culture, 8(4), 437–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellis, B. D. (2001). Scientific essentialism. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1994). The worth of a songbird: Ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecological Economics, 10, 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giere, R. N. (1999). Science without laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Goggin, M. L., & Blanpied, W. A. (1986). Governing science and technology in a democracy. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
  13. Harding, S. (1991). “Strong objectivity” and socially situated knowledge. In Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hess, D., & Taylor, P. (1996). Science and technology in a multicultural world: The cultural politics of facts and artifacts. Science, Technology & Human Values, 21(3), 358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2007). Summary for policymakers of the synthesis report of the IPCC fourth assessment report, Geneva.Google Scholar
  16. Kalichman, M. (2002). Ethical decision-making in research: Identifying all competing interests—commentary on “six domains of research ethics”. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(2), 215–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kalichman, M. W. (2007). Responding to challenges in educating for the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 870–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kalichman, M. W., & Plemmons, D. K. (2007). Reported goals for responsible conduct of research courses. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 846–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keller, K., Bolker, B. M., & Bradford, D. F. (2004). Uncertain climate thresholds and optimal economic growth. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 48, 723–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keller, K., Yohe, G., & Schlesinger, M. (2008). Managing the risks of climate thresholds: Uncertainties and information needs. Climatic Change, 91, 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kligyte, V., Marcy, R. T., Sevier, S. T., Godfrey, E. S., & Mumford, M. D. (2008a). A qualitative approach to responsible conduct of research (RCR) training development: Identification of metacognitive strategies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kligyte, V., Marcy, R. T., Waples, E. P., Sevier, S. T., Godfrey, E. S., Mumford, M. D., et al. (2008b). Application of a sensemaking approach to ethics training in the physical sciences and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(2), 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koopmans, T. C. (1965). On the concept of optimal economic growth. Academiae Scientiarum Scripta Varia, 28(1), 225–300.Google Scholar
  25. Lansing, J. S. (1991). Priests and programmers: Technologies of power in the engineered landscape of Bali. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Toward a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  27. Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lockhart, T. (2000). Moral uncertainty and its consequences. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Longino, H. (1983a). Beyond “bad science”: Skeptical reflections on the value-freedom of scientific inquiry. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 8(1), 7–17.Google Scholar
  30. Longino, H. E. (1983b). Scientific objectivity and the logics of science. Inquiry: An interdisciplinary. Journal of Philosophy, 26(1), 85–106.Google Scholar
  31. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Longino, H. E. (1997). Comments on science and social responsibility: A role for philosophy of science? Philosophy of science, 64(4), 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Longino, H. E. (2001). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Margolis, H., & Pickering, A. (1995). Paradigms and barriers: How habits of mind govern scientific beliefs. The Philosophical review, 104(2), 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McInerney, D., & Keller, K. (2008). Economically optimal risk reduction strategies in the face of uncertain climate thresholds. Climatic Change, 91(1–2), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meehl, G. A., Stocker, T. F., Collins, W. D., Friedlingstein, P., Gaye, A. T., Gregory, J. M., et al. (2007). Global climate projections. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, & H. L. Miller (Eds.), Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 747–845). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Miller, C. A., & Edwards, P. N. (2001). Changing the atmosphere: Expert knowledge and environmental governance, politics, science, and the environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. National Science Foundation. (1997). Important notice no. 121, new criteria for NSF proposals. Washington, DC: NSF.Google Scholar
  39. Nordhaus, W. D. (1992). An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science, 258(5086), 1315–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nordhaus, W. D. (1994). Expert opinion on climatic change. American Scientist, 82(1), 45–51.Google Scholar
  41. Nordhaus, W. D. (2007). To tax or not to tax: Alternative approaches to slowing global warming. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 1(1), 26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nordhaus, W. D., & Yang, Z. L. (1996). A regional dynamic general-equilibrium model of alternative climate-change strategies. American Economic Review, 86(4), 741–765.Google Scholar
  43. Parson, E. A., & Fisher-Vanden, K. (1999). Joint implementation of greenhouse gas abatement under the Kyoto protocol’s ‘clean development mechanism’: Its scope and limits. Policy Sciences, 32(3), 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pickering, A. (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Pimple, K. D. (2002). Six domains of research ethics—a heuristic framework for the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(2), 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Plemmons, D. K., Brody, S. A., & Kalichman, M. W. (2006). Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(3), 571–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Plemmons, D. K., & Kalichman, M. W. (2007). Reported goals for knowledge to be learned in responsible conduct of research courses. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(2), 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ramsey, F. (1928). A mathematical theory of saving. Economic Journal, 38(152), 543–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Restivo, S. P. (1994). Science, society, and values toward a sociology of objectivity. Bethlehem, PA/London/Cranbury, NJ: Lehigh University Press/Associated University Presses.Google Scholar
  50. Rhoades, L. J. (2002). Beyond conflict of interest: The responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(3), 459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Risbey, J., Kandlikar, M., & Patwardhan, A. (1996). Assessing integrated assessments. Climatic Change, 34(3–4), 369–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sayer, A. (2009). Geography and global warming: Can capitalism be greened? Area, 41(3), 350–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schienke, E., Tuana, N., Brown, D., Davis, K., Keller, K., Shortle, J., et al. (2009). The role of the NSF broader impacts criterion in enhancing research ethics pedagogy. Social Epistemology, 23(3–4), 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schlesinger, M. E. (1997). When we don’t know the costs or the benefits: Adaptive strategies for abating climate change. Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society, 213, 13-ENVR.Google Scholar
  55. Schneider, S. H., Semenov, S., Patwardhan, A., Burton, I., Magadza, C. H. D., Oppenheimer, M., et al. (2007). Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. v. d. Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 779–810). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Shadish, W. R., & Fuller, S. (1994). The social psychology of science. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  57. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1985). Risk analysis and scientific method: Methodological and ethical problems with evaluating societal hazards. Boston: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  58. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1994). Ethics of scientific research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  59. Steneck, N. H. (1999). Confronting misconduct in science in the 1980s and 1990s: What has and has not been accomplished? Science and Engineering Ethics, 5, 161–176.Google Scholar
  60. Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74.Google Scholar
  61. Steneck, N. H., & Bulger, R. E. (2007). The history, purpose, and future of instruction in the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 829–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Tiles, M. (1987). A science of Mars or of Venus? Philosophy, 62, 293–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tol, R. S. J. (2001). Equitable cost-benefit analysis of climate change policies. Ecological Economics, 36, 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. United States. (2007). America competes act, Washington D.C., U.S. G.P.O.: Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., distributor.Google Scholar
  66. Woodhouse, E., Hess, D., et al. (2002). Science studies and activism: Possibilities and problems for reconstructivist agendas. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 297–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erich W. Schienke
    • 1
  • Seth D. Baum
    • 3
  • Nancy Tuana
    • 2
  • Kenneth J. Davis
    • 4
  • Klaus Keller
    • 5
  1. 1.Science, Technology, and Society ProgramThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy, Rock Ethics InstituteThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeographyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  4. 4.Department of MeteorologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  5. 5.Department of GeosciencesThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations