Literature DB >> 33717309

Linking Biodiversity with Health and Well-being: Consequences of Scientific Pluralism for Ethics, Values and Responsibilities.

Serge Morand1,2, Claire Lajaunie3,4.   

Abstract

This paper investigates the ethical implications of research at the interface between biodiversity and both human and animal health. Health and sanitary crises often lead to ethical debates, especially when it comes to disruptive interventions such as forced vaccinations, quarantine, or mass culling of domestic or wild animals. In such debates, the emergence of a "Planetary health ethics" can be highlighted. Ethics and accountability principles apply to all aspects of scientific research including its technological and engineering applications, regardless of whether they are considered "hard sciences", such as state-of-the-art technology in the fields of medicine, veterinary medicine, agronomy, or environment, or "soft", such as local or global governance, health, socio-ecosystems, and the environment. Ethical reflection in the interdisciplinary field of biodiversity and health requires the examination of relevant scientific domains, such as biology, ecology, evolution, human medicine, animal medicine, anthropology, and law, and their epistemology and representation as well as scientific pluralism, which is crucial to establish genuine interdisciplinarity. Navigating the ethics-scape necessitates going beyond the hierarchy of science by recognising that scientific knowledge has implications for both scientific and non-scientific perspectives on the study of nature. The example of a Nipah virus outbreak is used to illustrate how the so-called "modern epidemiological" approach often focuses on risk factors associated with individual behavioural characteristics or collective practices, whereas the so-called "eco-social" approach focuses on global, socio-economic, and environmental factors that are the contextual causes of the health problem affecting the community. "Modern epidemiologists" aim to "correct" individual or practice factors using a "minimal set" of ethics, whereas "eco-social" scientists have to act systemically, which requires integrated research that acknowledges scientific pluralism, avoids the hierarchy of sciences, but accepts the pluralism of ethics and values. © National University of Singapore and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Animal health; Anthropocentrism; Ecocentrism; Global health; Hierarchy of sciences; One health; Planetary health; Pluralism of ethics; Scientific pluralism

Year:  2019        PMID: 33717309      PMCID: PMC7747447          DOI: 10.1007/s41649-019-00076-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Asian Bioeth Rev        ISSN: 1793-9453


  13 in total

1.  (Almost) everything you ever wanted to know about informed consent. [Review of: Faden, RR and Beauchamp, TL. A history and theory of informed concsent. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986].

Authors:  A M Capron
Journal:  Med Humanit Rev       Date:  1987-01

2.  Pluralism in evolutionary theory.

Authors:  U Dieckmann; M Doebeli
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.411

3.  The need for a global health ethic.

Authors:  Tony L Goldberg; Jonathan A Patz
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 4.  Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope.

Authors:  R Gillon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-07-16

5.  Origin and evolution of Nipah virus.

Authors:  Alessandra Lo Presti; Eleonora Cella; Marta Giovanetti; Alessia Lai; Silvia Angeletti; Gianguglielmo Zehender; Massimo Ciccozzi
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2015-08-14       Impact factor: 2.327

Review 6.  Lessons from the Nipah virus outbreak in Malaysia.

Authors:  Lai-Meng Looi; Kaw-Bing Chua
Journal:  Malays J Pathol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 0.656

Review 7.  To Cull, or Not To Cull, Bat is the Question.

Authors:  Kevin J Olival
Journal:  Ecohealth       Date:  2015-12-02       Impact factor: 3.184

8.  A Rosetta Stone for nature's benefits to people.

Authors:  Sandra Díaz; Sebsebe Demissew; Carlos Joly; W Mark Lonsdale; Anne Larigauderie
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 8.029

9.  Convergence of Humans, Bats, Trees, and Culture in Nipah Virus Transmission, Bangladesh.

Authors:  Emily S Gurley; Sonia T Hegde; Kamal Hossain; Hossain M S Sazzad; M Jahangir Hossain; Mahmudur Rahman; M A Yushuf Sharker; Henrik Salje; M Saiful Islam; Jonathan H Epstein; Salah U Khan; A Marm Kilpatrick; Peter Daszak; Stephen P Luby
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 6.883

10.  Agricultural pest control with CRISPR-based gene drive: time for public debate: Should we use gene drive for pest control?

Authors:  Virginie Courtier-Orgogozo; Baptiste Morizot; Christophe Boëte
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 8.807

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.