| 1. |
- Belfrage, Sara, et al.
(författare)
-
Ethical problems in traffic research
- 2006
-
Ingår i: TRA - TRANSPORT RESEARCH ARENA EUROPE 2006.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- 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
|
|
| 2. |
- Bergman, Åke, et al.
(författare)
-
Giftfritt – en nyttig utopi
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Chemicalnet.se.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Björkman, Barbro, et al.
(författare)
-
Bodily Rights and Property Rights
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Ethics. - : BMJ. - 0306-6800 .- 1473-4257. ; 32:4, s. 209-214
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 7. |
- Björkman, Barbro, 1974-
(författare)
-
Virtue Ethics, Bioethics, and the Ownership of Biological Material
- 2008
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The overall aim of this thesis is to show how some ideas in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics can be interpreted and used as a productive way to approach a number of pressing issues in bioethics. Articles I-II introduce, and endorse, a social constructivist perspective on rights (as opposed to the more traditional natural rights idea). It is investigated if the existence of property-like rights to biological material would include the moral right to commodification and even commercialisation. Articles III-V discuss similar questions and more specifically champion the application of an Aristotelian virtue ethics perspective. The articles are preceded by an introductory essay on some of the central themes in the Nicomachean Ethics. This section also includes a very brief account of what the connection between virtue ethics and a theory of social construction, including rights, could look like. The thesis seeks to show that if read somewhat creatively many of the ideas in the Nicomachean Ethics make for a highly useful approach to modern moral problems. It should be noted, however, that this thesis in no way claims to be an exegetic, or a complete, study of the Nicomachean Ethics. Article I deals with ownership of biological material from a philosophical, as opposed to a legal, perspective. It is argued that a strand in liberal political theory that treats property relations as socially constructed bundles of rights, as developed by e.g. Felix Cohen and Tony Honoré, is well suited for discussions on ownership of biological material. Article II investigates which differences in biological material might motivate differences in treatment and ownership rights. The article draws on the social constructivist theory of ownership which was developed in Article I. Article III employs virtue ethics to explain why it is morally permissible to donate but not to sell organs such as kidneys. It is suggested that the former action will bring the agent closer to a state of human flourishing. Article IV argues that virtues like philia, justice, beneficence and generosity — traditionally all seen as other-regarding — contain strong self-regarding aspects. The central claim is that these self-regarding aspects of the other-regarding virtues are necessary components of complete virtue and thus that the fully virtuous agent has to act virtuously both in her dealings with herself and others. Article V applies the ideas that were developed in Article IV to the case of living organ donations to next of kin. It is proposed that such an act, although noble and fine, is supererogatory, rather than obligatory, as the donor is morally entitled to be partial to herself. This argument is made against the backdrop of a discussion on some Aristotelian ideas on philia and partiality.
|
|
| 8. |
- Breitholtz, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Ten challenges for improved ecotoxicological testing in environmental risk assessment
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. - : Elsevier BV. - 0147-6513 .- 1090-2414. ; 63:2, s. 324-335
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 9. |
- Clausen, Jonas, et al.
(författare)
-
Generalizing the Safety Factor Approach
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Reliability Engineering & System Safety. - : Elsevier BV. - 0951-8320 .- 1879-0836. ; 91:8, s. 964-973
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 10. |
- Clausen Mork, Jonas, et al.
(författare)
-
Eurocodes and REACH - differences and similarities
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Risk Management. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1460-3799 .- 1743-4637. ; :19, s. 19-35
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
