Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and Vision Zero are often considered to be incompatible approaches to road traffic safety. The discord between the two can be traced back to basic incompatibilities between utilitarian and deontological modes of moral thinking. However, both have something to contribute. CBA is an expression of the reasonable principle that the resources available for improving traffic safety should be used as efficiently as possible, and Vision Zero expresses the equally reasonable principle that deaths and serious injuries in road traffic are always unacceptable. The two can be reconciled, if due attention is paid to the fact that Vision Zero accepts temporary compromises, albeit not end-goal compromises, and the efficiency analysis of CBA is disassociated from claims of optimality. We propose two ways to reconcile the two approaches. First, the results of a CBA can be presented not only for the currently used life-value but also for alternative, higher life-values. Secondly, essentially the same information can be presented in the form of cost-effectiveness safety analysis (CESA), which reports the economic costs per life saved. We propose that a CESA should be performed for all road traffic projects, not only those that have safety improvement as their main objective. In this way, an economically informed total overview of the impact of Vision Zero in traffic safety can be obtained.
Despite Vision Zero’s moral appeal and its expansion throughout the world, it has been criticized on different grounds. This chapter is based on an extensive literature search for criticism of Vision Zero, using the bibliographic databases Philosopher’s Index, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Phil Papers, and by following the references in the collected documents. Even if the primary emphasis was on Vision Zero in road traffic, our search also included documents criticizing Vision Zero policies in other safety areas, such as public health, the construction and mining industries, and workplaces in general. Based on the findings, we identify and systematically characterize and classify the major arguments that have been put forward against Vision Zero. The most important arguments against Vision Zero can be divided into three major categories: moral arguments, arguments concerning the (goalsetting) rationality of Vision Zero, and arguments aimed at the practical implementation of the goals. We also assess the arguments. Of the thirteen identified main arguments, six were found to be useful for a constructive discussion on safety improvements.
Traffic research gives rise to many types of ethical issues. In this paper we focus on ethical issues that arise when human beings are directly affected in the performance of research, by comparing traffic research to the ethical requirements imposed on biomedical research. After introducing the basic ethical requirements on biomedical research, each of the major requirements is discussed in relation to traffic research. We identify the main areas where biomedical research and traffic research differ, and where the ethical requirements from the former cannot easily be transferred to the latter. Finally, we argue that there is a need for systematic studies of the ethics of traffic research and point to some of the issues that need to be addressed (A). For the covering abstract of the conference see ITRD E212343
Whereas previous discussions on ownership of biological material have been much informed by the natural rights tradition, insufficient attention has been paid to the strand in liberal political theory represented by Felix Cohen, Tony Honore, and others, which treats property relations as socially constructed bundles of rights. In accordance with that tradition, we propose that the primary normative issue is what combination of rights a person should have to a particular item of biological material. Whether that bundle qualifies to be called `` property'' or `` ownership'' is a secondary, terminological issue. We suggest five principles of bodily rights and show how they can be applied to the construction of ethically appropriate bundles of rights to biological material.
The concepts of risk, safety, and security have received substantial academic interest. Several assumptions exist about their nature and relation. Besides academic use, the words risk, safety, and security are frequent in ordinary language, for example, in media reporting. In this article, we analyze the concepts of risk, safety, and security, and their relation, based on empirical observation of their actual everyday use. The "behavioral profiles" of the nouns risk, safety, and security and the adjectives risky, safe, and secure are coded and compared regarding lexical and grammatical contexts. The main findings are: (1) the three nouns risk, safety, and security, and the two adjectives safe and secure, have widespread use in different senses, which will make any attempt to define them in a single unified manner extremely difficult; (2) the relationship between the central risk terms is complex and only partially confirms the distinctions commonly made between the terms in specialized terminology; (3) whereas most attempts to define risk in specialized terminology have taken the term to have a quantitative meaning, nonquantitative meanings dominate in everyday language, and numerical meanings are rare; and (4) the three adjectives safe, secure, and risky are frequently used in comparative form. This speaks against interpretations that would take them as absolute, all-or-nothing concepts.
New regulations, in particular the new European chemicals legislation (REACH), will increase the demands on environmental risk assessment (ERA). The requirements on efficient ecotoxicological testing systems are summarized, and 10 major issues for the improvement of ERA practices are discussed, namely: (1) the choice of representative test species, (2) the development of test systems that are relevant for ecosystems in different parts of the world, (3) the inclusion of sensitive life stages in test systems, (4) the inclusion of endpoints on genetic variation in populations, (5) using mechanistic understanding of toxic effects to develop more informative and efficient test systems, (6) studying disruption in invertebrate endocrine mechanisms, that may differ radically from those we know from vertebrates, (7) developing standardized methodologies for testing of poorly water-soluble substances, (8) taking ethical considerations into account, in particular by reducing the use of vertebrates in ecotoxico logical tests, (9) using a systematic (statistical) approach in combination with mechanistic knowledge to combine tests efficiently into testing systems, and (10) developing ERA so that it provides the information needed for precautionary decision-making.
The co-evolution of society and potentially disruptive technologies makes decision guidance on such technologies difficult. Four basic principles are proposed for such decision guidance. None of the currently available methods satisfies these principles, but some of them contain useful methodological elements that should be integrated in a more satisfactory methodology. The outlines of such a methodology, multiple expertise interaction, are proposed. It combines elements from several previous methodologies, including (1) interdisciplinary groups of experts that assess the potential internal development of a particular technology; (2) external scenarios describing how the surrounding world can develop in ways that are relevant for the technology in question; and (3) a participatory process of convergence seminars, which is tailored to ensure that several alternative future developments are taken seriously into account. In particular, we suggest further development of a bottom-up scenario methodology to capture the co-evolutionary character of socio-technical development paths.
Safety factors (uncertainty factors) are used to avoid failure in a wide variety of practices and disciplines, in particular engineering design and toxicology. Although these two areas have similar problems in their use of safety factors, there are no signs of previous communication between the two disciplines. The present contribution aims at initiating such communications by pointing out parallel practices and joint issues between the two disciplines. These include the distinction between probabilistic variability and epistemic uncertainty, the importance of distribution tails, and the problem of countervailing risks. In conclusion, it is proposed that future research in this area should be interdisciplinary and make use of experiences from the various areas in which safety factors are used.
The developments of the new European construction standard (Eurocodes) and the new European chemical legislation (REACH) have taken place in parallel, and they are now both in their final stages. Both consist in European harmonization of safety regulations that concern major industries. In this paper, we compare Eurocodes and REACH in terms of purpose, intended level of harmonization, the science-policy interface and controversies about the costs of the regulations. We have found that the science-policy interface of REACH is characterized by public controversy and by attempts to keep risk assessment and risk management apart while the science-policy interface of Eurocodes is characterized by trust in experts, limited public involvement and organizational confluence of risk assessment and risk management. Furthermore, the costs of REACH have been a major issue in discussions between the Commission and the chemical industry while, in contrast, the costs of Eurocodes have not even been calculated either by the Commission or by the construction industry. A major reason for this is that construction industry does not seem to regard possible cost increases due to Eurocodes as a threat to their business interests. Regulators seem to have treated the cost issue as a business interest, not as an aspect of the decision that they should be concerned with even in the absence of external pressure.
Background: This study provides a description and analysis of the development of occupational diseases in China as recorded in the official statistics during the period 2000-2010, identifies major challenges, and explores possible solutions for prevention and control. Methods: In-depth textual analysis and data analysis of China's annual national reports of occupational diseases, as well as of corresponding policy and regulation documents. Results: The number of recorded cases of occupational diseases increased rapidly in China between 2000 and 2010. Pneumoconiosis was the most prevalent category of occupational diseases. Chemical poisonings accounted for 13% of the cases of occupational diseases. Conclusions: Difficulties in diagnosis and inefficient surveillance are major impediments to the mitigation of occupational diseases. The new definition of occupational disease has provided an opportunity to enlarge the Catalogue of Occupational Diseases. Improved coordination of the different chemical regulations meant to protect human health may also facilitate the prevention of occupational disease.
Several regulators have recently issued so-called risk-based occupational exposure limits for carcinogenic substances, and also reported estimates of the risk of fatality that exposure to the limit value would give rise to. This practice provides an opportunity to study how differences in the exposure limits set by different regulators are influenced by differences in the scientific judgment (what is the risk at different levels?) and in the policy judgment (how should large risks be accepted?). Based on a broad search, a list was compiled of exposure limits for carcinogens that the respective regulator associates with a numerical risk estimate. For benzene, such data was available from six regulators. The differences in estimates of the risk/exposure relationship and in risk tolerance were about equal in size for benzene, while the range for acceptability was somewhat wider. A similar pattern was observed, although less clearly, for substances with data from only two or three regulators. It is concluded that the science factor and the policy factor both contribute to differences in exposure limits for carcinogens. It was not possible to judge which of these two factors has the larger influence.
Occupational exposure limits (OELs) are used as a risk management tool aiming at protecting against negative health effects due to occupational exposure to harmful substances. The systems of OELs development have not been standardized and the divergent outcomes have been reported. However some harmonization process has been initiated, primary in Europe. This study aims at analysis of the state of harmonization in a more global context. The OELs systems of eight Asian and seventeen European organizations are analyzed with respect to: (1) the information regarding each organization's system for determining OELs; (2) similarity of substance selection in each system; (3) similarity of value levels of OEL. The analysis shows that the majority of investigated organizations declare to be influenced by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) systems, what in many cases is empirically confirmed. The EU harmonization process is also reflected in results showing the trends of convergence within the EU. However, the comparisons of Asian and European organisations indicate that there is no obvious evidence that OELs are becoming globally harmonized.
Occupational exposure limits (OELs) are used as a risk management tool aiming at protecting against negative health effects of occupational exposure to harmful substances. The systems of OEL development have not been standardized and divergent outcomes have been reported. However some harmonization processes have been initiated, primarily in Europe. This study investigates the state of harmonization in a global context. The OEL systems of eight Asian and seventeen European organizations are analyzed with respect to similarities and differences in: (1) the system for determining OELs, (2) the selection of substances, and (3) the levels of the OELs. The majority of the investigated organizations declare themselves to have been influenced by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), and in many cases this can be empirically confirmed. The EU harmonization process is reflected in trends towards convergence within the EU. However, comparisons of Asian and European organizations provide no obvious evidence that OELs are becoming globally harmonized.
Two major methods for achieving safety in engineering design are compared: safety engineering and probabilistic risk analysis. Safety engineering employs simple design principles or rules of thumb such as inherent safety, multiple barriers, and numerical safety margins to reduce the risk of accidents. Probabilistic risk analysis combines the probabilities of individual events in event chains leading to accidents in order to identify design elements in need of improvement and often also to optimize the use of resources. It is proposed that the two methodologies should be seen as complementary rather than as competitors. Probabilistic risk analysis is at its advantage when meaningful probability estimates are available for most of the major events that may contribute to an accident. Safety engineering principles are more suitable to deal with uncertainties that defy quantification. In many design tasks, the combined use of both methodologies is preferable.
Safety is a concern in almost all branches of engineering. Whereas safety was traditionally introduced by applying safety factors or margins to the calculated maximum load, this approach is increasingly replaced with probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) as a tool for dimensioning safety measures. In this paper, the two approaches are compared in terms of what they aim at and what they can, in fact, achieve. The outcome of this comparison suggests that the two approaches should be seen as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. PRA is particularly useful for priority setting and for the effect evaluation of safety measures; however, in most applications, uncertainties prevent PRA from providing an objective probability of failure or value of damage. Safety factorsare indispensible for dealing with dangers that cannot be assigned meaningful probabilities.
Climate change has generated several new theoretical and policy challenges, many of which concern how local communities ought to adapt to a warmer climate. This paper identifies and analyses a number of value judgements that come to the fore as local authorities adapt to climate change. Five categories of judgements are discussed: evaluation (how should the consequences of adaptation be evaluated?), timing (when should adaptive action be taken?), distribution (how should the benefits and burdens of adaptation be distributed?), procedures (who should be involved in adaptation decision making?), and goal conflicts (how should goal conflicts in adaptation be dealt with?). For each category, further research is needed to assist decision making at the local level.
Empirical evidence suggests that climate change will hit women disproportionately hard. Lack of political power, small economic resources, gender-bound patterns in the division of labour, entrenched cultural patterns and possibly biological differences in heat sensitivity combine to make women and girls particularly vulnerable to extreme weather and other climate-related events. Adaptation responses will likely reduce some of these vulnerabilities. However, just as climate change is likely to impact more severely on women than men, the costs and benefits of adaptation could be unevenly distributed between the sexes. Unless adaptation measures are carefully designed from a gender perspective, they may contribute to preserving prevailing gender inequalities and reinforce women's vulnerability to climate change. Institutions and decision-making processes need to be remodelled so as to guarantee that gender issues are adequately targeted within adaptation. This article identifies a number of methodologies and decision tools that could be used to mainstream gender in local adaptation planning.
In decision theory goals are usually taken as given inputs to the analysis, and the focus is on finding the most efficient means to achieve the goals. But where goals are set with the purpose of achieving them, it is important to know what properties they should possess in order to be successful (or achievement-inducing). Four such properties (or rationality criteria) are discussed, namely that goals should be precise, evaluable, approachable and motivating. Precision and evaluability are epistemic properties that concern what the agent may know. Approachability is an ability-related property that concerns what the agent can do. Motivity is a volitional property that concerns what the agent wants to do. Goals may satisfy the rationality criteria to a greater or lesser extent. Some goals are achievement-inducing mainly because they guide action towards the end-state well, others mainly because they motivate the agent to act towards the realization of the end-state.
This handbook provides a comprehensive treatment of Vision Zero, an innovative policy on public road safety developed in Sweden. Covering all the major topics of the subject, the book starts out with a thorough examination of the philosophy, ideas and principles behind Vision Zero. It looks at conditions for the effectiveness of the policy, principles of safety and responsibility as well as critique on the policy. Next, the handbook focuses on how the Vision Zero ideas have been received and implemented in various legislations and countries worldwide. It takes into account the way Vision Zero is looked at in the context of international organizations such as the WHO, the UN, and the OECD. This allows for a comparison of systems, models and effects. The third part of the handbook discusses the management and leadership aspects, including ISO standards, equity issues, other goals for traffic and transportation, and opportunities for the car industry. Part four delves into tools, technologies and organizational measures that contribute to the implementation of Vision Zero in road traffic. Examples of specific elements discussed are urban and rural road designs, human factor designs, and avoiding drunk and distracted driving. The final part of the handbook offers perspectives on the transfer of Vision Zero policy to other areas, ranging from air traffic to suicide prevention and nuclear energy.
Denial of scientific findings is neither a new nor an unexplored phenomenon. In the area of environmental science and policy though, the research on denial has not been systematically summarized and analyzed. This article reviews 161 scientific articles on environmental and climate science denial published in peer reviewed international journals in the last 25 years and aims to both identify research gaps and enable learning on the phenomenon. Such knowledge is needed for the increasingly important task to provide effective response to science denial, in order to put an end to its influence on environmental policy making. The review, which is based on articles found in the databases Web of Science, Scopus and Philosopher's Index, shows that denial by far is most studied in relation to climate change, with a focus on Anglo-American countries, where this form of denial is most common. Other environmental issues and other geographical areas have received much less scientific attention. While the actors behind climate science denial, their various motives and the characteristics of their operations have been thoroughly described, more comparative research between issues and countries is needed in order to draw reliable conclusions about the factors explaining the peculiarities of denial. This may in turn lay the ground for developing and actually testing the effectiveness and efficiency of strategies to counter environmental science denial. Irrespective of the ambitions of environmental goals, science-based policies are always preferable. The scientific community therefore needs to increase its efforts to dismantle false claims and to disclose the schemes of denialists.
In the EU legal system, there is a large difference between the procedures and requirements for the introduction of crops that are classified as genetically modified (GM) and crops not so classified. In order to investigate whether this regulatory divide is compatible with real risks two cases of GM crops and two cases of non-GM crops are scrutinized. It is concluded that the regulatory divide cannot be justified from the viewpoint of risk assessment, since the GM/non-GM dichotomy is not an accurate indicator of either health risk or environmental risk. Much better such indicators are available and should form the basis of a legislation aimed at preventing the introduction of crops that are harmful for human health or the environment. If the legislator has other reasons to regulate GM crops differently than conventional crops, then those reasons should be stated in the legislation and determine the types of measures that it prescribes.
We discuss options to reform the EU genetically modified organism (GMO) regulatory framework, make risk assessment and decision-making more consistent with scientific principles, and lay the groundwork for international coherence. In this third of three articles, we focus on labeling and coexistence as well as discuss the political reality and potential ways forward.
We discuss options to reform the EU genetically modified organisms (GMO) regulatory framework, make risk assessment and decision-making more consistent with scientific principles, and lay the groundwork for international coherence. The first in a threepart series, this article focuses on reform options related to the scope of the legislation and the GMO definition.
Here, we discuss options to reform the EU genetically modified organism (GMO) regulatory framework, to make risk assessment and decision-making more consistent with scientific principles, and to lay the groundwork for international coherence. We discussed the scope and definitions in a previous article and, thus, here we focus on the procedures for risk assessment and risk management.
The 1985 paper by Carlos Alchourrn (1931-1996), Peter Gardenfors, and David Makinson (AGM), "On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions" was the starting-point of a large and rapidly growing literature that employs formal models in the investigation of changes in belief states and databases. In this review, the first twenty-five years of this development are summarized. The topics covered include equivalent characterizations of AGM operations, extended representations of the belief states, change operators not included in the original framework, iterated change, applications of the model, its connections with other formal frameworks, computatibility of AGM operations, and criticism of the model.
In order to explore public views on nanobiotechnology (NBT), convergence seminars were held in four places in Europe; namely in Visby (Sweden), Sheffield (UK), Lublin (Poland), and Porto (Portugal). A convergence seminar is a new form of public participatory activity that can be used to deal systematically with the uncertainty associated for instance with the development of an emerging technology like nanobiotechnology. In its first phase, the participants are divided into three "scenario groups" that discuss different future scenarios. In the second phase, the participants are regrouped into three "convergence groups", each of which contains representatives from each of the three groups from the first phase. In the final third phase, all participants meet for a summary discussion. This pilot project had two aims: (1) to develop and assess the new methodology and (2) to gather advice and recommendations from the public that may be useful for future decisions on nanobiotechnology (NBT). Participants emphasized that they wanted the technology to focus on solutions to environmental and medical problems and to meet the needs of developing countries. The need for further public participation and deliberation on NBT issues seemed to be acknowledged by all participants. Many of them also raised equality concerns. Views on the means by which NBT should be steered into socially useful directions were more divided. In particular, different views were expressed on how much regulation of company activities is needed to curb unwanted developments. The participants' responses in a questionnaire indicate that the methodology of the convergence seminars was successful for decision-making under uncertainty. In particular, the participants stated that their advice was influenced both by access to different possible future developments and by the points of view of their co-participants, which is what the method is specifically intended to achieve.
Receiving information about threats to one’s health can contribute to anxiety and depression. In contemporary medical ethics there is considerable consensus that patient autonomy, or the patient’s right to know, in most cases outweighs these negative effects of information. Worry about the detrimental effects of information has, however, been voiced in relation to public health more generally. In particular, information about uncertain threats to public health, from—for example, chemicals—are said to entail social costs that have not been given due consideration. This criticism implies a consequentialist argument for withholding such information from the public in their own best interest. In evaluating the argument for this kind of epistemic paternalism, the consequences of making information available must be compared to the consequences of withholding it. Consequences that should be considered include epistemic effects, psychological effects, effects on private decisions, and effects on political decisions. After giving due consideration to the possible uses of uncertain information and rebutting the claims that uncertainties imply small risks and that they are especially prone to entail misunderstandings and anxiety, it is concluded that there is a strong case against withholding of information about uncertain threats to public health.
A preference is said to be adaptive if it is formed or changed in response to the agent’s feasible options (Elster 1985, Bruckner 2009). Adaptive preferences are major candidates for being discounted (or entirely dismissed) in welfarist accounts of the good (Elster 1985, Bovens 1992, Nussbaum 2001). In this paper, we refine this basic intuition in two ways. First, we show that not all adaptive preferences should be thus discounted. Second, we provide a general framework for determining which preferences should be discounted due to their adaptiveness, including a set of procedural exclusion criteria to be used for this purpose.
As part of the conference commemorating Theoria's 75th anniversary, a round table discussion on philosophy publishing was held in Bergendal, Sollentuna, Sweden, on 1 October 2010. Bengt Hansson was the chair, and the other participants were eight editors-in-chief of philosophy journals: Hans van Ditmarsch (Journal of Philosophical Logic), Pascal Engel (Dialectica), Sven Ove Hansson (Theoria), Vincent Hendricks (Synthese), S circle divide ren Holm (Journal of Medical Ethics), Pauline Jacobson (Linguistics and Philosophy), Anthonie Meijers (Philosophical Explorations), Henry S. Richardson (Ethics) and Hans Rott (Erkenntnis).