Citation

Maxey MN. Environ. Health Perspect. 1978; 27: 223-230.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1978, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

738238

PMCID

PMC1637280

Abstract

The putative hazards of solid waste management cannot be evaluated without placing the problem within a cultural climate of crisis where some persons consider such by-products of "high, hard technology" to have raised unresolved moral and ethical issues. In order to assist scientific and technical efforts to protect public health and safety, a bioethical perspective requires us to examine three controversial aspects of policy-making about public safety. Failure to recognize the qualitative difference between two cognitive activities-risk-measurements (objective, scientific probabilities) and safety-judgments (subjective, shifting value priorities)-has had three unfortunate consequences. Sophisticated methods of risk analysis have been applied in a piecemeal, haphazard, ad hoc fashion within traditional institutions with the false expectation that incremental risk-reducing programs automatically ensure public health and safety. Ethical priorities require, first and foremost, a whole new field of data arranged for comparable risk-analyses. Critics of cost/risk/benefit quantifications attack the absurdity of "putting a price on human life" but have not been confronted with its threefold ethical justification. The widening discrepancy in risk-perceptions and loss of mutual confidence between scientific experts and ordinary citizens has placed a burden of social responsibility on members of the scientific and technical community to engage in more effective public education through the political process, notwithstanding advocates of a nonscientific adversary process. The urgency of effective public education has been demonstrated by the extent to which we have lost our historically balanced judgment about the alleged environmental hazards posed by advanced technology.

Language: en