Nuclear Technology and the Ethics of Worker Radiation Risk

这笔赠款将支持一个研究小组，由一名瑞典物理学家（测量电离辐射的影响）和一名美国哲学家（研究技术风险中的伦理问题）组成，以审查核工作人员现行辐射防护标准的伦理假设和政策后果。该项目有7个目标：调查国际原子能机构（原子能机构）的辐射防护标准，包括其道德基础和政策后果;评估原子能机构的这些规范在多大程度上预先假定了更平等或更实用的道德;澄清工作人员与公众在电离辐射照射方面的双重标准（工作人员标准较为宽松）;确定核工作人员是否可能对他们所承受的较高辐射风险给予自由知情同意;调查工作场所的自由知情同意标准，与医学伦理学中使用的标准进行比较;追踪有关工作人员受电离辐射的规范所产生的伦理后果;并确定替代原则将在多大程度上导致影响核工作人员安全的公共政策变化。对核工作人员辐射防护标准的伦理评价将涉及七个问题：原子能机构的主要辐射防护标准是什么？原子能机构的辐射规范（基于合理、最佳化和剂量限制原则）是否主要遵循功利主义或平等主义的道德原则？那么，哪一个更适合当前的社会呢？对于核工人来说？为了子孙后代？传统的正当理由-补偿性工资差别-对工人和公众的电离辐射照射实行双重标准，其伦理和评价的前提、长处和弱点是什么？核雇主应该在工作场所尝试实施哪些自由知情同意的道德条件？当前核法规中关于工人同意的伦理和评估前提、优点和缺点是什么？在解决这些问题时，项目小组将采用以前使用过并取得成功的四种方法：（1）文献研究，（ii）评估伦理假设，（iii）两阶段伦理分析，以及（iv）案例研究。每年的研究结束后，一个多学科的核能专家小组将对项目文章进行评估。物理-哲学项目团队的优势包括4年的合作工作以及对使用核技术的利弊的不同意见。 两人都是广泛发表论文的学者。他们具有与政策有关的经验，并在国际风险评估协会中担任职务。该项目的潜在影响包括增加物理学、伦理学和经济学知识;加强对工人健康和安全的保护;促进多学科和国际研究的卓越性;辐射防护方面的跨国合作;以及改善与工人安全和核技术有关的国际教育和伦理。

This grant will support a research team, composed of a Swedish physicist (who measures effects of ionizing radiation) and a US philosopher (who investigates ethical issues in technological risk) to examine ethical assumptions and policy consequences of current radiation-protection standards for nuclear workers. The project has 7 objectives: to investigate the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) radiation-protection standards, including their ethical underpinnings and policy consequences; to assess the degree to which these IAEA norms presuppose more egalitarian or utilitarian ethics; to clarify the double standard for worker, versus public, exposure to ionizing radiation (worker standards are more lenient); to determine whether nuclear workers are likely to have given free informed consent to higher radiation risks they bear; to investigate workplace standards for free informed consent, as compared to those used in medical ethics; to trace the ethical consequences following from the norms governing worker exposures to ionizing radiation; and to determine the degree to which alternative principles would result in public-policy changes affecting the safety of nuclear workers. Ethical evaluation of radiation-protection standards for nuclear workers will involve seven questions: What are the main IAEA radiation-protection standards, and how do they differ from those for public exposure? Do IAEA radiation norms (based on the Justification, Optimization, and Dose-Limitation Principles) follow mainly utilitarian or egalitarian ethical principles? Which, if either, is more desirable for current society? For nuclear workers? For future generations? What are the ethical and evaluative presuppositions, strengths, and weaknesses of the traditional justification -- the compensating wage differential -- for the double standard for worker, versus public, exposures to ionizing radiation? What ethical conditions for free informed consent ought nuclear employers attempt to implement in the workplace? What are the ethical and evaluative presuppositions, strengths, and weaknesses of current nuclear regulations for worker consent? In addressing these questions, the project team will employ four methods that it has used previously, with successful results: (1) bibliographic research, (ii) assessment of ethical assumptions, (iii) two-stage ethical analysis, and (iv) case studies. After each year of research, a multidisciplinary group of nuclear-energy experts will evaluate project articles. The strengths of the physics-philosophy project team include 4 years of prior collaborative work and different opinions as to the pros and cons of using nuclear technology. Both are widely published scholars. They have had policy-related experience and hold offices in international risk-assessment societies. The potential impacts of the project include increased knowledge in physics, ethics, and economics; greater protection of worker health and safety; fostering excellence in multidisciplinary and international research; transnational cooperation in radiation protection; and improving international education and ethics related to worker safety and nuclear technology.