THE ETHICS OF ECOLOGICAL FIELD EXPERIMENTATION
THE ETHICS OF ECOLOGICAL FIELD EXPERIMENTATION
复制标题
DOI：
10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.07030463.x
复制
发表时间：
1993-09-01
影响因子：
6.3
通讯作者：
ROSOVSKY, J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
FARNSWORTH, EJ;ROSOVSKY, J
生态实地研究产生了大量有价值的信息，其中大部分为保护工作提供了信息。当我们提议修改或危害我们研究的个体生物、种群、物种或生态系统时，这种研究会引起伦理问题。然而，科学文献几乎没有明确考虑生态研究本身对器官或生态系统的影响。我们认为，在野外科学家中缺乏公共伦理话语是由于（1）对引发可能危及未来研究努力的争议感到恐惧：（2）假设我们研究的相对收益超过了研究对象的潜在短期成本（即，对研究对象的更多了解可能有助于其保护）;（3）难以感知我们工作的潜在负面影响;（4）对某些实验的默认假设，这些假设是“错误的”。随着生物体的收集，科学观察对生存和行为的影响，以及对整个生态系统的实验操作，已经出现了伦理方面的考虑。关于环境伦理学和动物实验的文献，这两个与生态伦理学问题无关的来源，可能提供不同的，偶尔相互冲突的价值体系，以建立生态实验伦理。虽然专门设计的方法，以尽量减少对研究对象的影响已经出版，我们发现很少有现有的正式机制的外部监管或自我监管的研究活动在该领域。我们建议，道德考虑，保护和恢复措施，是与健全的科学协议兼容，可能是有益的纳入实地实验的设计，我们鼓励科学家和哲学家之间的对话在这个问题上。
Ecological field research has generated a wealth of valuable information much of which informs conservation efforts. Such research raises ethical issues when we propose to modify or endanger the individual organism, population, species, or ecosystem we study. Yet the scientific literature contains little explicit consideration of the impact of ecological study itself on organ isms or ecosystems. We propose that the lack of public ethical discourse among field scientists is due to (1) trepidation about initiating a controversy that could endanger future research efforts: (2) an assumption that the relative benefits of our research outweigh potential short-term costs to the study object (that is, increased knowledge of the study object may inform its conservation); (3) difficulties in perceiving the potential negative impact of our work; (4) tacit assumptions about certain experiments that are simply ''wrong'' to do. Ethical considerations have already arisen with the collection of organisms, the effects of scientific observation on survivorship and behavior, and experimental manipulations of whole ecosystems. The literature on environmental ethics and animal experimentation, two sources that bear tangentially on the issues of ecological ethics, may afford diverse and occasionally conflicting value systems on which to build an ethic of ecological experimentation. Although methods specifically devised to minimize the impact on study subjects have been published we find few existing formal mechanisms of external regulation or self-regulation of research activities in the field. We suggest that ethical considerations, conservation and restoration measures that are compatible with sound scientific protocols, may be profitably incorporated into the design of field experiments We encourage a dialogue between scientists and philosophers on this issue.