Assessing ethical trade-offs in ecological field studies
Assessing ethical trade-offs in ecological field studies
复制标题
评估生态领域研究中的伦理权衡
DOI：
10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01755.x
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Fabien Medvecky
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Parris;S. McCall;M. McCarthy;B. Minteer;K. Steele;S. Bekessy;Fabien Medvecky
1.生态学家和保护生物学家在设计实地研究时会考虑许多问题，如数据的预期价值、研究物种的利益、单个生物的福利和项目成本。这些不同的问题或价值观经常相互冲突；然而，无论是动物伦理还是环境伦理，都没有就如何评估它们之间的权衡提供实际指导。2.借鉴生态伦理学的研究成果，提出了生态研究中价值权衡的决策框架。我们使用了一个三种青蛙种群遗传学的案例研究，在这个案例中，研究人员必须在四种从研究动物身上提取DNA的方法中进行选择。我们用抽样后种群增长率的下降来衡量物种福利，并使用两种不同的定义来评估个体福利：(I)动物经历的痛苦程度，和(Ii)痛苦与未来生命损失相结合的水平。3.对物种福利而言，拨弄蝌蚪尾巴是最好的抽样方法，而采集整个蝌蚪和取成年蛙的口腔拭子分别是第一和第二个个体福利定义的最佳抽样方法。在物种福利和个体福利的第一个定义上，截趾是最差的抽样方法，在第二个个体福利的定义上，同样是最差的抽样方法。4.在同时考虑物种和个体福利的情况下，修趾法明显优于其他抽样方法，但没有一种单一抽样方法明显优于其他三种抽样方法。口腔拭子、收集蝌蚪和尾巴倾倒都是首选的选择，这取决于个体福利的定义和我们评估物种福利的精确度。5.合成与应用。我们提出的决策框架可以被生态学家用来在规划实地研究时评估伦理和其他权衡。正式的决策分析使研究人员可能如何协商相互冲突的伦理、财务和实际目标变得透明。以这种方式定义决策的组成部分有助于避免与人的判断和语言不确定性相关的错误。
1. Ecologists and conservation biologists consider many issues when designing a field study, such as the expected value of the data, the interests of the study species, the welfare of individual organisms and the cost of the project. These different issues or values often conflict; however, neither animal ethics nor environmental ethics provides practical guidance on how to assess trade-offs between them. 2. We developed a decision framework for considering trade-offs between values in ecological research, drawing on the field of ecological ethics. We used a case study of the population genetics of three frog species, in which a researcher must choose between four methods of sampling DNA from the study animals. We measured species welfare as the reduction in population growth rate following sampling, and assessed individual welfare using two different definitions: (i) the level of suffering experienced by an animal, and (ii) the level of suffering combined with loss of future life. 3. Tipping the tails of tadpoles ranked as the best sampling method for species welfare, while collecting whole tadpoles and buccal swabbing of adult frogs ranked best for the first and second definitions of individual welfare, respectively. Toe clipping of adult frogs ranked as the worst sampling method for species welfare and the first definition of individual welfare, and equal worst for the second definition of individual welfare. 4. When considering species and individual welfare simultaneously, toe clipping was clearly inferior to the other sampling methods, but no single sampling method was clearly superior to the other three. Buccal swabbing, collecting tadpoles and tail tipping were all preferred options, depending on the definition of individual welfare and the level of precision with which we assessed species welfare. 5. Synthesis and applications. The decision framework we present can be used by ecologists to assess ethical and other trade-offs when planning field studies. A formal decision analysis makes transparent how a researcher might negotiate competing ethical, financial and practical objectives. Defining the components of the decision in this way can help avoid errors associated with human judgement and linguistic uncertainty.