Applicability to Human Needs

  • Tina Sikka
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Sociology book series (BRIEFSSOCY)


This Chapter discusses the virtue of applicability to human needs and makes that case that it has generally failed to be applied to scientific practice as well as geoengineering in particular. Issues discussed include the extent and nature of scientific backing, how ethics figures into the support of climate engineering, as well as matters related to intergenerational justice, globalization, socially responsible science and conflicts of interest. Despite the fact that a basic understanding of human needs is both intuitive and self-evident, related issues around human interests, justice, equity and power are also important and significantly complicate how this virtue is perceived and the avenues through which it can be attained.


Human needs Globalization Intergenerational Feminist science Justice Moral hazard Public policy Governance 


  1. Adger, W. N., et al. (2010). Progress in environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 547–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, M. S. (2007). Collective openness and other recommendations for the promotion of research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 387–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aswathy, V. N., et al. (2015). Climate extremes in multi-model simulations of stratospheric aerosol and marine cloud brightening climate engineering. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. European Geosciences Union, 15(16), 9593–9610.Google Scholar
  4. Ban-Weiss, G. A., & Caldeira, K. (2010). Geoengineering as an optimization problem. Environmental Research Letters, 5(3). Accessed 23 Feb 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beierle, T. C. (2010). Democracy in practice: Public participation in environmental decisions. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bickel, J., & Agrawal, S. (2012). Reexamining the economics of aerosol geoengineering. Climatic Change, 119, 993–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bjornerud, M. (1997). Gaia: Gender and scientific representations of the Earth. NWSA Journal, 9(3), 89–106.Google Scholar
  8. Blackstock, J. J., et al. (2009). Climate engineering responses to climate emergencies. arXiv preprint arXiv:0907.5140. Accessed 22 Feb 2017.
  9. Bovenkerk, B. (2015). Scientific responsibility: Should analysis start with the scientists? The American Journal of Bioethics, 15(12), 66–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brewer, P. G. (2007). Evaluating a technological fix for climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(24), 9915–9916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burns, W. C. (2011). Climate geoengineering: Solar radiation management and its implications for intergenerational equity. Stanford Journal for Law and Policy. Accessed 24 Feb 2017.
  12. Caldeira, K., & Keith, D. W. (2010). The need for climate engineering research. Issues in Science and Technology, 27(1), 57–62.Google Scholar
  13. Carroll, D., & Charo, R. A. (2015). The societal opportunities and challenges of genome editing. Genome Biology, 16(1), 242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Demeritt, D. (2001). The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Annals of the association of American geographers, 91(2), 307–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eriksson, K. (2002). Caring science in a new key. Nursing Science Quarterly, 15(1), 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher, E., et al. (2010). The public value of nanotechnology? Scientometrics, 85(1), 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fountain, H. (2015, February 10). Panel urges research on geoengineering as a tool against climate change. The New York Times. Accessed 15 Sept 2016.
  18. Fountain, H. (2017). White House urges research on geoengineering to combat global warming. New York Times, 10 January 2017. Accessed 21 Feb 2017.
  19. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1992). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk (pp. 251–273). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  20. Gardiner, S. (2009). Is arming the future’ with geoengineering really the lesser evil? Some doubts about the ethics of intentionally manipulating the climate system. Accessed 15 Feb 2017.
  21. Gardiner, S. M. (2011, May 1). Some early ethics of geoengineering the climate: A commentary on the values of the Royal Society report. Environmental Values, 20(2), 163–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goes, M., Tuana, N., & Keller, K. (2011). The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering. Climatic Change, 109(3–4), 719–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gramstad, K., & Tjøtta, S. (2010). Climate engineering: Cost benefit and beyond. Accessed 23 Feb 2017.
  24. Gustafsson, et al. (1984). The Uppsaa code of ethics for scientists. Journal of pease Research, 21(4), 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamilton, C. (2013). How Bill Gates is engineering the Earth to resist climate change. Crikey, 26 Feb 2013. Accessed 23 Feb 2017.
  26. Hayakawa, T., et al. (2016). Report of the international regulatory forum on human cell therapy and gene therapy products. Biologicals, 44(5), 467–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. IASS Working Paper. (2015). Responsible scientific research involving geoengineering. Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS), Postdam. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.
  28. Irwin, A. (2002). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jackson, S. C. (2009). Parallel pursuit of near-term and long-term climate mitigation. Science, 326, 526–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jamieson, D. (2009). The ethics of geoengineering. People and Place, 1, 2. Accessed 24 Feb 2017.
  31. Jones, N. L. (2007). A code of ethics for the life sciences. Science and engineering ethics, 13(1), 25–43.Google Scholar
  32. Jones, A., et al. (2011). comparison of the climate impacts of geoengineering by stratospheric SO2 injection and by brightening of marine stratocumulus cloud. Atmospheric Science Letters, 12(2), 176–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kalidindi, S., et al. (2015). Modeling of solar radiation management: A comparison of simulations using reduced solar constant and stratospheric sulphate aerosols. Climate Dynamics, 44(9-10), 2909–2925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keith, D., & Wagner, G. (2016). To help cool the climate, add aerosol. Wired Magazine, 10 May 2016. Accessed 1 Mar 2017.
  35. Klepper, G. (2012). What are the costs and benefits of climate engineering? And can we assess them? Sicherheit und Frieden (S+ F)/Security and Peace, 30, 211–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kourany, J. A. (2010). Philosophy of science after feminism. Oxford: Oxford Univerity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lane, L. (2013). Climate engineering and the Anthropocene era. In W. C. G. Burns & A. L. Strauss (Eds.), Climate change geoengineering: Philosophical perspectives, legal issues, and governance frameworks (pp. 115–145). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ledford, H. (2015). Where in the world could the first CRISPR baby be born? Nature. Available at: Accessed 4 May 2018.
  39. Lenton, T. M. (2011). Early warning of climate tipping points. Nature Climate Change, 1(4), 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lenton, T. M., & Vaughan, N. E. (2009). The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 9(15), 5539–5561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lindholm, L., & Eriksson, K. (1993). To understand and to alleviate suffering in a caring culture. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 1351–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Longino, H. E. (1996). Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In L. H. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science (pp. 39–58). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Longino, H. (2002a). Reply to Philip Kitcher. Philosophy of Science, 69(4), 573–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Longino, H. (2002b). Science and the common good: Thoughts on Philip Kitcher’s science, truth, and democracy. Philosophy of Science, 69(4), 560–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Longino, H. E. (2002c). The fate of knowledge. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Longino, H. E., & Lennon, K. (1997). Feminist epistemology as a local epistemology. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 71, 19–54.Google Scholar
  48. Mathieson, K. (2015). Is geoengineering a bad idea? The Guardian, 11 February 2015. Accessed 21 Feb 2017.
  49. Nagl, S. (2005). Biomedicine and moral agency in a complex world. In M. Shildrick & R. Mykitiuk (Eds.), Ethics of the body: Postconventional chanllenges (pp. 155–174). London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Niemeier, U. H., et al. (2011). The dependency of geoengineered sulfate aerosol on the emission strategy. Atmospheric Science Letters, 12(2), 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nussbaum, M. (1999). Women and equality: The capabilities approach. In M. F. Loutfi (Ed.), Women, gender and work: What is equality and how do we get there? (pp. 45–68). Geneva: International Labour Office.Google Scholar
  52. Oxford Geoengineering Programme. (2017). Why consider it? Oxford Geoengineering Programme. Accessed 19 Feb 2017.
  53. Parthasarathy, S., et al. (2010). A public good? Geoengineering and intellectual property. Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy Working Paper, Michigan. Accessed 24 Feb 2017.
  54. Preston, C. J. (2013). Ethics and geoengineering: Reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(1), 23–37.Google Scholar
  55. Rasch, P. J, Tilmes, S, Turco, R. P, Robock, A Oman, L, Chen, C, Stenchikov, G. L, & Garcia, R. R. (2008, November). An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulphate aerosols. Philosophical Transactions. Series A Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 366(1882), 4007–4037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rayner, S., et al. (2013). The Oxford principles. Climatic Change, 121(3), 499–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Robock, A., et al. (2009). Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering. Geophysical Research Letters 36, 19. Accessed 23 Feb 2017.
  58. Roston, E. (2017). Scientists want to give the atmosphere an antacid to relieve climate change. Bloomberg 12 December 2016. Accessed 21 Feb 2017.
  59. Sankar, P. L., & Cho, M. K. (2015). Engineering values into genetic engineering: A proposed analytic framework for scientific social responsibility. The American Journal of Bioethics, 15(12), 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 54, 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Scott, D. (2012). Geoengineering and environmental ethics. Nature Education Knowledge, 3, 10. Accessed 12 Feb 2017.
  63. Stock, G., & Campbell, J. (2000). Engineering the human germline​. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Svoboda, T., et al. (2011). Sulfate aerosol geoengineering: The question of justice. Public Affairs Quarterly, 25(3), 157–179.Google Scholar
  65. UK House of Commons: Select Committee on Science and Technology. (2010). The regulation of geoengineering. London: UK House of Commons Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  66. UNEP. (1972). Declaration of the united nations conference on the human environment. United Nations Environmental Program. Accessed 24 Feb 2017.
  67. Vidal, J. (2012). Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering. The Guardian, 6 February 2012. Accessed 13 Feb 2017.
  68. Ward, T. (2011). The right to free, prior, and informed consent: Indigenous peoples’ participation rights within international law. Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights, 10, 54–84.Google Scholar
  69. Watson, J. (2007). Watson’s theory of human caring and subjective living experiences: Carative factors/caritas processes as a disciplinary guide to the professional nursing practice. Texto & Contexto-Enfermagem, 16(1), 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Watson, J. (2012). Viewpoint: Caring science meets heart science: A guide to authentic caring practice. American Nurse Today, 7, 8. August 2012. Accessed 19 Feb 2017.
  71. Watson, J., & Smith, M. C. (2002). Caring science and the science of unitary human beings: A trans-theoretical discourse for nursing knowledge development. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37(5), 452–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weiss, E. B. (1990). In fairness to future generations. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 32(3), 6–31.Google Scholar
  73. Winickoff, D. E., & Brown, M. B. (2013). Time for a government advisory committee on geoengineering research. Issues in Science and Technology, 29(4), 79–85.Google Scholar
  74. Wodskou, C. (2014). Give geoengineering a chance to fix climate change: David Keith. CBC News, 29 March 2014. Accessed 1 Mar 2017.

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tina Sikka
    • 1
  1. 1.Media and Cultural StudiesNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations