Assisted Migration, Risks and Scientific Uncertainty, and Ethics: A Comment on Albrecht et al.’s Review Paper
- 452 Downloads
In response to Albrecht et al.’s (J Agric Environ Ethics 26(4):827–845, 2013) discussion on the ethics of assisted migration, we emphasize the issues of risk and scientific uncertainty as an inextricable part of a comprehensive ethical evaluation. Insisting on a separation of risk and ethical considerations, although arguably common in many policy contexts, is at best misguided and at worst damaging.
KeywordsAssisted migration Ethics Risk Scientific uncertainty Precautionary principle
This work is part of the Academy of Finland research project number 258144 “Constraints and Opportunities of Assisted Dispersal of Plants in Climate Change Adaptation–Biological, Legal and Ethical Analyses (CO-ADAPT)”. Helpful comments by Maria Hällfors, Elina Vaara and Helena Siipi on an earlier version of this response were much appreciated.
- Camacho, A. E. (2010). Assisted migration: Redefining nature and natural resource law under climate change. Yale Journal on Regulation, 27(2), 171–255.Google Scholar
- Cranor, C. F. (1997). The normative nature of risk assessments: Features and possibilities. 8 Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, 123–136.Google Scholar
- European Environment Agency (EEA) (2001). Late lessons from early warnings: The precautionary principle 1896–2000. http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/en/Issue_Report_No_22.pdf. Accessed 12 Aug 2013.
- Hansson, S. O. (2007). Risk and ethics: Three approaches. In T. Lewens (Ed.), Risk: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 21–35). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hällfors, M. H., Vaara, E. M., Hyvärinen, M., Oksanen, M., Schulman, L. E., Siipi, H., & Lehvävirta, S. Coming to terms with the concept of moving species threatened by climate change: A systematic review of terminology and definitions. Submitted manuscript.Google Scholar
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2012). Guidelines for reintroductions and other conservation translocations.Google Scholar
- Lemons, J. (Ed.). (1996). Scientific uncertainty and environmental problem solving. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Maschinski, J., Albrecht, M. A., Monks, L., & Haskins, K. E. (2012). Appendix 1: Center for plant conservation best reintroduction practice guidelines. In J. Maschinski & E. Haskins (Eds.), Plant reintroduction in a changing climate: Promises and perils (pp. 277–306). Washington DC: IslandPress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mayo, D. G. (1991). Sociological versus metascientific views of risk assessment. In D. G. Mayo & R. D. Hollander (Eds.), Acceptable evidence: Science and values in risk management (pp. 249–279). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Sáenz-Romero, C., Beaulieu, J., & Rehfeldt, G. E. (2011). Altitudinal genetic variation among Pinus patula populations from Oaxaca, México, in growth chambers simulating global warming temperatures. Agrociencia, 45, 399–411.Google Scholar
- Wiener, J. B. (2007). Precaution. In D. Bodansky, J. Brunnée, & E. Hey (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (pp. 597–612). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar