Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T18:58:09.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Health Reframing of Climate Change and the Poverty of Narrow Bioethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2021

Kyle Ferguson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We must resist thoroughly reframing climate change as a health issue. For human health–centric ethical frameworks omit dimensions of value that we must duly consider. We need a new, an environmental, research ethic, one that we can use to more completely and impartially evaluate proposed research on mitigation and adaptation strategies.

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 48 , Issue 4: Climate Change and the Legal, Ethical, and Health Issues Facing Healthcare and Public Health Systems , Winter 2020 , pp. 705 - 717
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

For a summary, see the Editors’ Introduction in this special issue: Ganesh, C., Schmeltz, M., and Smith, J., “Introduction: Climate Change and the Legal, Ethical and Health Issues Facing Healthcare and Public Health Systems,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 48, no. 4 (2020): 636–642.Google Scholar
Jamieson, D., Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle against Climate Change Failed — and What It Means for Our Future (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014): at 4.Google Scholar
Nick Watts celebrated the greater tangibility of reframing climate change as human health issue and its connection to advancing the mitigation agenda in Humphreys, G., “Reframing Climate Change as a Health Issue,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 92, no. 8 (2014): 551–552.Google Scholar
Malbach, E. W., Nisbet, M., and Baldwin, P. et al., “Reframing Climate Change as a Public Health Issue: An Exploratory Study of Public Reactions,” BMC Public Health 10, no. 1 (2010): 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. Jr., “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” Science 155, no. 3767 (1967): 1203–1207.Google Scholar
Jones, W. H. S., ed., Hippocrates Collected Works, vol. I (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1868): at 320, available at <www.perseus.tufts.edu> (last visited September 24, 2020).Google Scholar
Faden, R., Bernstein, J., and Shebaya, S., “Public Health Ethics,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/publichealth-ethics/> (last visited September 24, 2020).+(last+visited+September+24,+2020).>Google Scholar
There are noteworthy exceptions to the above characterization of public health ethics. Recently, some voices in public health have called our attention to the public health consequences of environmental harms. When concern for the environment is purely motivated by its importance public health and human welfare, public health ethics continues its anthropocentric streak. But some writers appear to be moving beyond the anthropocentrism that has long dominated public health ethics: Lee, L. M., “A Bridge Back to the Future: Public Health Ethics, Bioethics, and Environmental Ethics,” The American Journal of Bioethics 17, no. 9 (2017): 5–12; Degeling, C., Lederman, Z., and Rock, M., “Culling and the Common Good: Re-evaluating Harms and Benefits under the One Health Paradigm,” Public Health Ethics 9, no. 3 (2016): 244–254; Persad, G., “Justice and Public Health,” in Oxford Handbook of Public Health Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019); Verweij, M. and Bovenkerk, B., “Ethical Promises and Pitfalls on OneHealth,” Public Health Ethics 9, no. 1 (2016): 1–4.Google Scholar
Grady, C., “Institutional Review Boards: Purpose and Challenges,” Chest 48, no. 5 (2015): 1148–1155.Google Scholar
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, April 18, 1979, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report> (last visited September 24, 2020); 45 C.F.R. § 46.111 (2018); 21 C.F.R. § 56.111 (2019).+(last+visited+September+24,+2020);+45+C.F.R.+§+46.111+(2018);+21+C.F.R.+§+56.111+(2019).>Google Scholar
Russell, W. M. S. and Burch, R. L., The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique (London: Methuen, 1959).Google Scholar
Singer, P., Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals (New York: The New York Review, 1975).Google Scholar
Regan, T., The Case for Animal Rights (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983).Google Scholar
Steinbock, B., “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality,” Philosophy 53, no. 204 (1978): 247–256.Google Scholar
DeGrazia, D. and Beauchamp, T. L., Principles of Animal Research Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).Google ScholarPubMed
Korsgaard, C. M., Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).Google Scholar
DeGrazia, D.. “Moral Status as a Matter of Degree?” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 46, no. 2 (2008): 181–198.Google Scholar
Williams, B., “Must a Concern for the Environment Be Centered on Human Beings?” in Making Sense of Humanity and Other Philosophical Papers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 233–240. Originally published in 1992. Reprinted in Gruen, L., Jamieson, D., and Schlottman, C., eds., Reflecting on Nature: Readings in Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013): at 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Williams, supra note 18: at 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center, The Politics of Climate, October 4, 2016, available at <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/10/PS_2016.10.04_Politics-of-Climate_FINAL.pdf> (last visited September 1, 2020).+(last+visited+September+1,+2020).>Google Scholar
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2019).Google Scholar
National Research Council, Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2015).Google Scholar
Rom, W. N. and Pinkerton, K. E., “Introduction: Consequences of Global Warming to the Public’s Health,” in Global Climate Change and Public Health, ed. Pinkerton, K. E. and Rom, W. N. (New York: Human Press, 2014), 1–20: at 9–15.Google Scholar
Adelman, S., “Geoengineering: Rights, Risks and Ethics,” Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 8, no. 1 (2017): 119–138; Corner, A. and Pidgeon, N., “Geoengineering the Climate: The Social and Ethical Implications,” Environment 52, no. 1 (2010): 24–37; Elliott, K., “Geoengineering and the Precautionary Principle,” International Journal of Applied Philosophy 24, no. 2 (2010): 237–253; Jamieson, D., “Ethics and Intentional Climate Change,” Climatic Change 33, no. 3 (1996): 323–336; Royal Society, Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance, and Uncertainty (London: Royal Society, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Adelman, supra note 24; see Corner and Pidgeon, supra note 24; see Jamieson, supra note 24.Google Scholar
Gardiner, S. M., “Why Geoengineering Is Not a ‘Global Public Good’, and Why It Is Ethically Misleading to Frame It as One,” Climatic Change 121, no. 3 (2013): 513–525; McLaren, D. P., “Whose Climate and Whose Ethics? Conceptions of Justice in Solar Engineering Modeling,” Energy Research and Social Science 44 (2018): 209–221; Preston, C. J., ed., Climate Justice and Geoengineering: Ethics and Policy in the Atmospheric Anthropocene (London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016).Google Scholar
See Adelman, supra note 24; Callies, D. E., “Institutional Legitimacy and Geoengineering Governance,” Ethics, Policy & Environment 21, no. 3 (2018): 324–340; Lawford-Smith, H., “Democratic Authority to Geoengineer,” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 23, no. 5 (2020): 600–617.Google Scholar
See Adelman, supra note 24; see Jamieson, supra note 24.Google Scholar
Stilgoe, J., “Geoengineering as Collective Experimentation,” Science and Engineering Ethics 22, no. 3 (2015): 851–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, C. J., “Ethics and Geoengineering: Reviewing the Moral Issues Raised by Solar Radiation Management and Carbon Dioxide Removal,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews — Climate Change 4, no. 1 (2013): 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
One of the earliest and most important contributions is Jamieson, supra note 24. For more recent discussions, see Bunzl, M., “Researching Geoengineering: Should Not or Could Not?” Environmental Research Letters 4, no. 3 (2009): 045104; Hourdequin, M., “Climate Change, Climate Engineering, and the ‘Global Poor’: What Does Justice Require?” Ethics, Policy & Environment 21, no. 3 (2018): 270–288; Jinnah, S., Nicholson, S., and Flegal, J., “Toward Legitimate Governance of Solar Geoengineering Research: A Role for Sub-State Actors,” Ethics, Policy & Environment 21, no. 3 (2018): 362–381; and Morrow, D. R., Kopp, R. E., and Oppenheimer, M., “Toward Ethical Norms and Institutions for Climate Engineering Research,” Environmental Research Letters 4, no. 4 (2009): 045106. This list is not exhaustive, but just a sample of the literature on geoengineering research ethics.Google Scholar
See Morrow, Kopp, and Oppenheimer, supra note 31: at 2.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, supra note 10.Google Scholar
See Russell and Burch, supra note 11.Google Scholar
See Morrow, Kopp, and Oppenheimer, supra note 31: at 4.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Friesen, P., Kearns, L., Redman, B., and Caplan, A. L., “Rethinking the Belmont Report?” The American Journal of Bioethics 17, no. 7 (2017): 15–21.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the Internet: Strategies for Climate Change Adaptation, Climate Change Adaptation Resource Center (ARC-X), available at <https://www.epa.gov/arc-x/strategies-climate-change-adaptation> (last visited September 23, 2020).+(last+visited+September+23,+2020).>Google Scholar
See Rom and Pinkerton, supra note 23: at 12.Google Scholar
Leftwich, P. T., Edgington, M. P., and Harvey-Samuel, T. et al., “Recent Advances in Threshold-Dependent Gene Drives for Mosquitoes,” Biochemical Society Transactions 46, no. 5 (2018): 1203–1212.Google Scholar
Scudellari, M., “Self-Destructing Mosquitoes and Sterilized Rodents: The Promise of Gene Drives,” Nature 571, no 7764 (2019): 160–162.Google Scholar
Swart, R., Biesbroek, R., and Lourenço, T. Capela, “Science of Adaptation to Climate Change and Science for Adaptation,” Frontiers in Environmental Science 2 (2014): 1–29.Google Scholar
Lacey, J., Howden, S. M., Cvitanovic, C., and Dowd, A.-M.. “Informed Adaptation: Ethical Considerations for Adaptation Researchers and Decision-Makers.” Global Environmental Change 32 (2015): 200–210.Google Scholar
S, A. M.. Shelton, , Long, S. J., and Walker, A.S. et al., “First Field Release of a Genetically Engineered, Self-Limiting Agricultural Pest Insect: Evaluating Its Potential for Future Crop Protection,” Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 7 (2020), article 482.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the Internet: “EPA Approves Experimental Use Permit to Test Innovative Biopesticide Tool to Better Protect Public Health,” Office of Pesticide Programs Update, available at <https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USAEPAOPPT/bulletins/2896a76> (last visited September 24, 2020).+(last+visited+September+24,+2020).>Google Scholar
Emerson, C., James, S., Littler, K., and Randazzo, F. F., “Principles for Gene Drive Research,” Science 358, no. 6367 (2017): 1135–1136; Lavery, J. V., Harrington, L. C., and Scott, T. W., “Ethical, Legal, and Cultural Considerations for Site Selection for Research with Genetically Modified Mosquitoes,” American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 79, no. 3 (2008): 312–318; Macer, D., “Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues of Genetically Modifying Insect Vectors for Public Health,” Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 35, no. 7 (2005): 649–660; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2016); Neuhaus, C. P. and Caplan, A. L., “Ethical Lessons from a Tale of Two Genetically Modified Insects,” Nature Biotechnology 35, no. 8 (2017): 713–716.Google Scholar
Meghani, Z., “Autonomy of Nations and Indigenous Peoples and the Environmental Release of Genetically Engineered Animals with Gene Drives,” Global Policy 10, no. 4 (2019): 554–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Emerson et al., supra note 47; see Laverly et al., supra note 47; see Macer, supra note 47; Meghani, Z. and Boëte, C., “Genetically Engineered Mosquitoes, Zika and Other Arboviruses, Community Engagement, Costs, and Patents: Ethical Issues,” PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 12, no. 7 (2018): e0006501; Neuhaus, C. P., “Community Engagement and Field Trials of Genetically Modified Insects and Animals,” Hastings Center Report 48, no. 1 (2018): 25–36; Resnik, D. B., Open Peer Commentary, “Field Trials of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes and Public Health Ethics,” The American Journal of Bioethics 17, no. 9 (2017): 24–26; Resnik, D. B., “Ethics of Community Engagement in Field Trials of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes,” Developing World Bioethics 18, no. 2 (2018): 135–143.Google Scholar
See Meghani and Boëte, supra note 49.Google Scholar
Meghani, Z. and Kuzma, J., “Regulating Animals with Gene Drive Systems: Lessons from the Regulatory Assessment of a Genetically Engineered Mosquito,” Journal of Responsible Innovation 5, suppl. 1 (2018): S203–S222.Google Scholar
See Laverly et al., supra note 47.Google Scholar
See Adelman, supra note 24; see Jamieson, supra note 24.Google Scholar
See Meghani and Kuzma, supra note 51.Google Scholar
See Neuhaus and Caplan, supra note 47.Google Scholar
See National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, supra note 47. Cited in Neuhaus and Caplan, supra note 47.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Emerson et al., supra note 47, at 1136.Google Scholar
See National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, supra note 47, at 69.Google Scholar
Id., at 23.Google Scholar
Id. at 65.Google Scholar
See Singer, supra note 12.Google Scholar
See Regan, supra note 13.Google Scholar
For a valuable discussion of these alternatives, see Jamieson, D., Ethics and the Environment: An Introduction (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008): chapter 6.Google Scholar
Goodpaster, K., “On Being Morally Considerable,” Journal of Philosophy 76, no. 6 (1978): 308–325; Taylor, P. W., Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), excerpts reprinted in Gruen, L., Jamieson, D., and Schlottman, C., eds., Reflecting on Nature: Readings in Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013): 72–81.Google Scholar
Callicott, J. B., Beyond the Land Ethic (Albany: SUNY Press, 1999).Google Scholar
Leopold, A., A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There (New York: Oxford University Press, 1949).Google Scholar
See Taylor, supra note 65, at 73.Google Scholar
Id., at 74.Google Scholar
Id., at 76.Google Scholar
Id., at 78.Google Scholar
Lee, L. M., “A Bridge Back to the Future: Public Health Ethics, Bioethics, and Environmental Ethics,” The American Journal of Bioethics 17, no. 9 (2017): 5–12.Google Scholar
Jamieson, D. on the Internet: “It’s Time to Rediscover Bioethics,” Fifteeneightyfour: Academic Perspectives from Cambridge University Press, available at <http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2020/05/its-time-to-rediscover-bioethics/> (last visited September 24, 2020).+(last+visited+September+24,+2020).>Google Scholar
Macpherson, C. C., Smith, E., and Rieder, T. N., “Does Health Promotion Harm the Environment?” The New Bioethics 26, no. 2 (2020): 158–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar