Taking action on developmental toxicity: Scientists’ duties to protect children
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although adaptation and proper biological functioning require developmental programming, pollutant interference can cause developmental toxicity or DT.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>This commentary assesses whether...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2012-09-01
|
| Series: | Environmental Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.ehjournal.net/content/11/1/61 |
| _version_ | 1818205856559267840 |
|---|---|
| author | Shrader-Frechette Kristin |
| author_facet | Shrader-Frechette Kristin |
| author_sort | Shrader-Frechette Kristin |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although adaptation and proper biological functioning require developmental programming, pollutant interference can cause developmental toxicity or DT.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>This commentary assesses whether it is ethical for citizens/physicians/scientists to allow avoidable DT.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using conceptual, economic, ethical, and logical analysis, the commentary assesses what major ethical theories and objectors would say regarding the defensibility of allowing avoidable DT.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The commentary argues that (1) none of the four major ethical theories (based, respectively, on virtue, natural law, utility, or equity) can consistently defend avoidable DT because it unjustifiably harms, respectively, individual human flourishing, human life, the greatest good, and equality. (2) Justice also requires leaving “as much and as good” biological resources for all, including future generations possibly harmed if epigenetic change is heritable. (3) Scientists/physicians have greater justice-based duties, than ordinary/average citizens, to help stop DT because they help cause it and have greater professional abilities/opportunities to help stop it. (4) Scientists/physicians likewise have greater justice-based duties, than ordinary/average citizens, to help stop DT because they benefit more from it, given their relatively greater education/consumption/income. The paper shows that major objections to (3)-(4) fail on logical, ethical, or scientific grounds, then closes with practical suggestions for implementing its proposals.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Because allowing avoidable DT is ethically indefensible, citizens---and especially physicians/scientists---have justice-based duties to help stop DT.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-12T04:03:47Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-50d7f0087a724576bc5dd83322937bea |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1476-069X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-12T04:03:47Z |
| publishDate | 2012-09-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Environmental Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-50d7f0087a724576bc5dd83322937bea2022-12-22T00:38:50ZengBMCEnvironmental Health1476-069X2012-09-011116110.1186/1476-069X-11-61Taking action on developmental toxicity: Scientists’ duties to protect childrenShrader-Frechette Kristin<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although adaptation and proper biological functioning require developmental programming, pollutant interference can cause developmental toxicity or DT.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>This commentary assesses whether it is ethical for citizens/physicians/scientists to allow avoidable DT.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using conceptual, economic, ethical, and logical analysis, the commentary assesses what major ethical theories and objectors would say regarding the defensibility of allowing avoidable DT.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The commentary argues that (1) none of the four major ethical theories (based, respectively, on virtue, natural law, utility, or equity) can consistently defend avoidable DT because it unjustifiably harms, respectively, individual human flourishing, human life, the greatest good, and equality. (2) Justice also requires leaving “as much and as good” biological resources for all, including future generations possibly harmed if epigenetic change is heritable. (3) Scientists/physicians have greater justice-based duties, than ordinary/average citizens, to help stop DT because they help cause it and have greater professional abilities/opportunities to help stop it. (4) Scientists/physicians likewise have greater justice-based duties, than ordinary/average citizens, to help stop DT because they benefit more from it, given their relatively greater education/consumption/income. The paper shows that major objections to (3)-(4) fail on logical, ethical, or scientific grounds, then closes with practical suggestions for implementing its proposals.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Because allowing avoidable DT is ethically indefensible, citizens---and especially physicians/scientists---have justice-based duties to help stop DT.</p>http://www.ehjournal.net/content/11/1/61Developmental toxicityEthicsJusticePolicyRiskScientists’ duties |
| spellingShingle | Shrader-Frechette Kristin Taking action on developmental toxicity: Scientists’ duties to protect children Environmental Health Developmental toxicity Ethics Justice Policy Risk Scientists’ duties |
| title | Taking action on developmental toxicity: Scientists’ duties to protect children |
| title_full | Taking action on developmental toxicity: Scientists’ duties to protect children |
| title_fullStr | Taking action on developmental toxicity: Scientists’ duties to protect children |
| title_full_unstemmed | Taking action on developmental toxicity: Scientists’ duties to protect children |
| title_short | Taking action on developmental toxicity: Scientists’ duties to protect children |
| title_sort | taking action on developmental toxicity scientists duties to protect children |
| topic | Developmental toxicity Ethics Justice Policy Risk Scientists’ duties |
| url | http://www.ehjournal.net/content/11/1/61 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT shraderfrechettekristin takingactionondevelopmentaltoxicityscientistsdutiestoprotectchildren |