European researchers across heterogeneous disciplines voice concerns and argue for new paths towards a brighter future regarding scientific and knowledge creation and communi- cation. Recently, in biological and natural sciences concerns have been expressed that major threats are intentionally ignored. These threats are challenging Europe's future sustainability towards creating knowledge that effectively deals with emerging social, environmental, health, and economic problems of a planetary scope. Within social science circles, however, the root cause regarding the above challenges has been linked with macro-level forces of neo-liberal ways of valuing and relevant rules in academia and beyond which we take for granted. These concerns raised by heterogeneous scholars in natural and the applied social sciences concern the ethics of today's research and academic integrity. Applying Bourdieu's sociology, there is little hope that intentional human agency may change the current habitus. Rather than attributing the replication of neo-liberal habitus in intentional agent and institutional choices, Bourdieu's work raises the importance of thoughtlessly internalised habits in human and social action. Accordingly, most action within a given paradigm (in this case, neo-liberalism) is understood as habituated, i.e. unconsciously reproducing external social fields, even ill-defined ways of valuing. This essay analyses these and how they may help critically analyse the current habitus surrounding research and knowledge production, evaluation, and communication and related aspects of academic free- dom. Although it is acknowledged that transformation is not easy, this essay presents arguments and recent theory paths to suggest that change nevertheless may be a realistic hope once certain action logics are encouraged.
{"title":"Towards (more) integrity in academia, encouraging long-term knowledge creation and academic freedom","authors":"Kleio Akrivou","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00156","url":null,"abstract":"European researchers across heterogeneous disciplines voice concerns and argue for new paths towards a brighter future regarding scientific and knowledge creation and communi- cation. Recently, in biological and natural sciences concerns have been expressed that major threats are intentionally ignored. These threats are challenging Europe's future sustainability towards creating knowledge that effectively deals with emerging social, environmental, health, and economic problems of a planetary scope. Within social science circles, however, the root cause regarding the above challenges has been linked with macro-level forces of neo-liberal ways of valuing and relevant rules in academia and beyond which we take for granted. These concerns raised by heterogeneous scholars in natural and the applied social sciences concern the ethics of today's research and academic integrity. Applying Bourdieu's sociology, there is little hope that intentional human agency may change the current habitus. Rather than attributing the replication of neo-liberal habitus in intentional agent and institutional choices, Bourdieu's work raises the importance of thoughtlessly internalised habits in human and social action. Accordingly, most action within a given paradigm (in this case, neo-liberalism) is understood as habituated, i.e. unconsciously reproducing external social fields, even ill-defined ways of valuing. This essay analyses these and how they may help critically analyse the current habitus surrounding research and knowledge production, evaluation, and communication and related aspects of academic free- dom. Although it is acknowledged that transformation is not easy, this essay presents arguments and recent theory paths to suggest that change nevertheless may be a realistic hope once certain action logics are encouraged.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"15 1","pages":"49-54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper discusses the evolution of large scientific systems in general and the sys- tem of formal scientific communications in particular in the context of their gradual transition to private hands. This in turn results in increased 'phony' research fronts, fueled by the interests of big business, pools of inaccessible hi-impact Anglo-American journals whose authors cite each other (author's citation cartels), and non-transparent global university rankings, which can be manipulated. Furthermore, the authors argue that the functioning of national scientific systems by means of having them linked to the global system of formal scientific communications and rank- ings is organized as an unrestrained race for publications, citations, impact factors, and rankings in which strong systems only get stronger and the weak ones get weaker. Such a race therefore cannot lead to sustainable development of the scientific system. The authors also look at the feu- dalism of knowledge and identify 3 steps to oppose this process.
{"title":"Is sustainable development of scientific systems possible in the neo-liberal agenda?","authors":"V. Moskovkin, O. Serkina","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00165","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00165","url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the evolution of large scientific systems in general and the sys- tem of formal scientific communications in particular in the context of their gradual transition to private hands. This in turn results in increased 'phony' research fronts, fueled by the interests of big business, pools of inaccessible hi-impact Anglo-American journals whose authors cite each other (author's citation cartels), and non-transparent global university rankings, which can be manipulated. Furthermore, the authors argue that the functioning of national scientific systems by means of having them linked to the global system of formal scientific communications and rank- ings is organized as an unrestrained race for publications, citations, impact factors, and rankings in which strong systems only get stronger and the weak ones get weaker. Such a race therefore cannot lead to sustainable development of the scientific system. The authors also look at the feu- dalism of knowledge and identify 3 steps to oppose this process.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"16 1","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655763","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The new media offer a valuable tool to spread the results of academic research outside the boundaries of academia, but they can also have a chilling effect on academic freedom. In this paper, I argue that we need to rethink academic freedom in the light of the enormous changes in communication and dissemination of ideas provided by the new media. I also argue that we need to develop strategies that would help us best use the potential of the Internet, while limiting as much as possible its potential threats to academic freedom.
{"title":"Rethinking academic freedom","authors":"Francesca Minerva","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00167","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00167","url":null,"abstract":"The new media offer a valuable tool to spread the results of academic research outside the boundaries of academia, but they can also have a chilling effect on academic freedom. In this paper, I argue that we need to rethink academic freedom in the light of the enormous changes in communication and dissemination of ideas provided by the new media. I also argue that we need to develop strategies that would help us best use the potential of the Internet, while limiting as much as possible its potential threats to academic freedom.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"15 1","pages":"95-104"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay presents an overview of the concept of 'nature'. It provides some reflec- tions on the heterogeneity of notions and values subsumed in the term nature in a portion of the Western tradition (from Ancient Greece-Rome through the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment to the present day). The paper explores, in a diachronic, non-comprehensive fashion, the various connotations and conceptions given to the term nature, highlighting the socio-ecological risks that occur when ecological notions are extrapolated worldwide as if they were standard ones. It also reveals that such philosophical plurality is a historical as well as a contemporary phenomenon. The heterogeneity of notions in Western and Amerindian traditions should, ideally, be linked to pragmatic strategies geared toward the construction of improved contemporary environmental ethics.
{"title":"Unfurling western notions of nature and Amerindian alternatives","authors":"E. Zent","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00159","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00159","url":null,"abstract":"This essay presents an overview of the concept of 'nature'. It provides some reflec- tions on the heterogeneity of notions and values subsumed in the term nature in a portion of the Western tradition (from Ancient Greece-Rome through the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment to the present day). The paper explores, in a diachronic, non-comprehensive fashion, the various connotations and conceptions given to the term nature, highlighting the socio-ecological risks that occur when ecological notions are extrapolated worldwide as if they were standard ones. It also reveals that such philosophical plurality is a historical as well as a contemporary phenomenon. The heterogeneity of notions in Western and Amerindian traditions should, ideally, be linked to pragmatic strategies geared toward the construction of improved contemporary environmental ethics.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"15 1","pages":"105-123"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Two contrasting ideas, that humans are 'part of the ecosystem' (i.e. a constitutive ele- ment of the ecosystems they exploit) and that humans are 'a cancer on the Earth', are examined in the light of the current despoliation of the biosphere. It is concluded that neither can describe our longer-term ecological role on Earth, which, at best, will have to resemble that of a co-evolved par- asite of the earth's systems.
{"title":"Homo sapiens: cancer or parasite?","authors":"D. Pauly","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00152","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00152","url":null,"abstract":"Two contrasting ideas, that humans are 'part of the ecosystem' (i.e. a constitutive ele- ment of the ecosystems they exploit) and that humans are 'a cancer on the Earth', are examined in the light of the current despoliation of the biosphere. It is concluded that neither can describe our longer-term ecological role on Earth, which, at best, will have to resemble that of a co-evolved par- asite of the earth's systems.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"14 1","pages":"7-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Two broad types of approaches have been used in biodiversity conservation: (1) non- utilitarian approaches, which put the emphasis on the aesthetic, emotional, spiritual, and ethical values of nature, and (2) utilitarian approaches, which put the emphasis on species and ecosys- tems as resources or service suppliers for humans. Here, I argue that the long-standing divide between utilitarian and non-utilitarian perspectives is a reflection of the separation between humankind and nature that lies at the root of the global ecological crisis. Neither perspective chal- lenges this separation fundamentally; therefore; neither alone offers a solid foundation for biodi- versity conservation. Resolving the current ecological crisis requires, first and foremost, reconcil- ing humans with their own nature, which in turn requires refocusing both human development and nature conservation on fundamental human needs. Contrary to a widely held idea, funda- mental human needs do not involve a purely utilitarian or anthropocentric worldview. Quite the opposite, they provide powerful non-utilitarian arguments for nature conservation, and they are fully compatible with the recognition or attribution of intrinsic values in the human and non- human world. Human nature is neither fundamentally selfish and utilitarian, nor fundamentally altruistic and non-utilitarian; humans simply have a set of fundamental needs that require satis- faction, and these needs include respecting and loving the world around them.
{"title":"Reconciling utilitarian and non-utilitarian approaches to biodiversity conservation","authors":"M. Loreau","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00149","url":null,"abstract":"Two broad types of approaches have been used in biodiversity conservation: (1) non- utilitarian approaches, which put the emphasis on the aesthetic, emotional, spiritual, and ethical values of nature, and (2) utilitarian approaches, which put the emphasis on species and ecosys- tems as resources or service suppliers for humans. Here, I argue that the long-standing divide between utilitarian and non-utilitarian perspectives is a reflection of the separation between humankind and nature that lies at the root of the global ecological crisis. Neither perspective chal- lenges this separation fundamentally; therefore; neither alone offers a solid foundation for biodi- versity conservation. Resolving the current ecological crisis requires, first and foremost, reconcil- ing humans with their own nature, which in turn requires refocusing both human development and nature conservation on fundamental human needs. Contrary to a widely held idea, funda- mental human needs do not involve a purely utilitarian or anthropocentric worldview. Quite the opposite, they provide powerful non-utilitarian arguments for nature conservation, and they are fully compatible with the recognition or attribution of intrinsic values in the human and non- human world. Human nature is neither fundamentally selfish and utilitarian, nor fundamentally altruistic and non-utilitarian; humans simply have a set of fundamental needs that require satis- faction, and these needs include respecting and loving the world around them.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"14 1","pages":"27-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The biodiversity hypothesis postulates that the rapid increase in the prevalence of allergies, asthma and other chronic inflammatory disorders in developed countries in the past few decades is caused by loss of biodiversity, which reduces human exposure to beneficial environ- mental microbes with essential immunoregulatory functions. The biodiversity hypothesis builds upon Graham Rook's 'old friends' concept, which highlights the long-term evolution of the human immune system with a diverse assembly of microbes. I describe a case study showing that the inci- dence of atopy (allergy sensitization) in adolescents decreases significantly with an increasing amount of forest and agricultural land in the surroundings of their homes. Environmental micro- biota as part of broader biodiversity provides a tangible but little appreciated 'ecosystem service', which is vital for every individual.
{"title":"Biodiversity, microbes and human well-being","authors":"I. Hanski","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00150","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00150","url":null,"abstract":"The biodiversity hypothesis postulates that the rapid increase in the prevalence of allergies, asthma and other chronic inflammatory disorders in developed countries in the past few decades is caused by loss of biodiversity, which reduces human exposure to beneficial environ- mental microbes with essential immunoregulatory functions. The biodiversity hypothesis builds upon Graham Rook's 'old friends' concept, which highlights the long-term evolution of the human immune system with a diverse assembly of microbes. I describe a case study showing that the inci- dence of atopy (allergy sensitization) in adolescents decreases significantly with an increasing amount of forest and agricultural land in the surroundings of their homes. Environmental micro- biota as part of broader biodiversity provides a tangible but little appreciated 'ecosystem service', which is vital for every individual.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"14 1","pages":"19-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655572","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this Theme Section, a selection of the International Ecology Institute Prize laure- ates and authors of the Excellence in Ecology books present their thoughts on the ethics of our impact on, and the future of, the earth's ecosystems. The 5 essays address various issues: (1) the longer-term role of humans on the earth and (2) the earth's capacity for supporting humans; (3) the diversity of microbes surrounding us and the allergic desensitization they provide and (4) our need for respecting the world around us; (5) which is gradually being compromised by our inabil- ity to act as reasonable stewards of the earth. In addition, the ethics of overfishing as well as new issues and questions raised are briefly discussed.
{"title":"The ethics of human impacts and the future of the earth’s ecosystems: Introduction","authors":"D. Pauly, K. Stergiou","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00154","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00154","url":null,"abstract":"In this Theme Section, a selection of the International Ecology Institute Prize laure- ates and authors of the Excellence in Ecology books present their thoughts on the ethics of our impact on, and the future of, the earth's ecosystems. The 5 essays address various issues: (1) the longer-term role of humans on the earth and (2) the earth's capacity for supporting humans; (3) the diversity of microbes surrounding us and the allergic desensitization they provide and (4) our need for respecting the world around us; (5) which is gradually being compromised by our inabil- ity to act as reasonable stewards of the earth. In addition, the ethics of overfishing as well as new issues and questions raised are briefly discussed.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"14 1","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655830","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Global change, driven by increasing levels of human population, growing consumption by the rich, and poor choices of technologies and social arrangements to supply that consumption, have generated a suite of environmental problems that threaten civilization. This in turn has brought to the fore a daunting array of ethical issues that, sadly, are not being widely addressed. I sample some of these and discuss them in a way that hopefully will generate some of the needed discourse.
{"title":"Human impact: the ethics of I=PAT","authors":"P. Ehrlich","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00151","url":null,"abstract":"Global change, driven by increasing levels of human population, growing consumption by the rich, and poor choices of technologies and social arrangements to supply that consumption, have generated a suite of environmental problems that threaten civilization. This in turn has brought to the fore a daunting array of ethical issues that, sadly, are not being widely addressed. I sample some of these and discuss them in a way that hopefully will generate some of the needed discourse.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"14 1","pages":"11-18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay investigates the limiting capacity of the planet to support humans, making various assumptions about current practices and the intensities of per caput resource consumption. Supposing people to be exclusively vegetarian, consuming cereals produced by present methods, at the highest reported yields, and also eschewing the cultivation of non-edible crops, the Earth is argued to be capable of sustaining a population up to 55 billion. Consuming mixed diets including meat and beverages while continuing to raise non-food crops reduces the capacity by 7- to 10-fold, closer to the actual population at the present time. When the availability and distribution of exploitable water supplies are considered, it is difficult to argue for a sustainable population much exceeding 10 billion, without considerable changes in the equity of supply. All such extrapolations are subject to unknown consequences of rapid and chaotic climate change. The possibility that the rate of human population growth may be stabilising for other reasons, with numbers perhaps peaking at 10 to 11 billion, may yet allow increasingly widespread and severe water shortages to be avoided. This coincidence offers the opportunity to improve human sustainability through new social structures and new, cleaner, more resource-efficient technologies. They need to be directed towards solving inequities in resource use—not only of food and energy, but especially also of water. Though ultimately speculative and polemical, the essay is a genuine attempt to promote the case for recognising our real problems and the need to evolve strategies for survival.
{"title":"On the planetary capacity to sustain human populations","authors":"C. Reynolds","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00153","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00153","url":null,"abstract":"This essay investigates the limiting capacity of the planet to support humans, making various assumptions about current practices and the intensities of per caput resource consumption. Supposing people to be exclusively vegetarian, consuming cereals produced by present methods, at the highest reported yields, and also eschewing the cultivation of non-edible crops, the Earth is argued to be capable of sustaining a population up to 55 billion. Consuming mixed diets including meat and beverages while continuing to raise non-food crops reduces the capacity by 7- to 10-fold, closer to the actual population at the present time. When the availability and distribution of exploitable water supplies are considered, it is difficult to argue for a sustainable population much exceeding 10 billion, without considerable changes in the equity of supply. All such extrapolations are subject to unknown consequences of rapid and chaotic climate change. The possibility that the rate of human population growth may be stabilising for other reasons, with numbers perhaps peaking at 10 to 11 billion, may yet allow increasingly widespread and severe water shortages to be avoided. This coincidence offers the opportunity to improve human sustainability through new social structures and new, cleaner, more resource-efficient technologies. They need to be directed towards solving inequities in resource use—not only of food and energy, but especially also of water. Though ultimately speculative and polemical, the essay is a genuine attempt to promote the case for recognising our real problems and the need to evolve strategies for survival.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"14 1","pages":"33-41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3354/ESEP00153","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655772","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：