Morand Serge, Lajaunie Claire
Institut des Sciences de l'Évolution de Montpellier (ISEM, Institute of Evolution Sciences of Montpellier), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS, French National Centre for Scientific Research), Animal, Santé, Territoires, Risques et Ecosystèmes (ASTRE), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Asian Bioeth Rev. 2019 Mar 12;11(2):153-168. doi: 10.1007/s41649-019-00076-4. eCollection 2019 Jun.
This paper investigates the ethical implications of research at the interface between biodiversity and both human and animal health. Health and sanitary crises often lead to ethical debates, especially when it comes to disruptive interventions such as forced vaccinations, quarantine, or mass culling of domestic or wild animals. In such debates, the emergence of a "Planetary health ethics" can be highlighted. Ethics and accountability principles apply to all aspects of scientific research including its technological and engineering applications, regardless of whether they are considered "hard sciences", such as state-of-the-art technology in the fields of medicine, veterinary medicine, agronomy, or environment, or "soft", such as local or global governance, health, socio-ecosystems, and the environment. Ethical reflection in the interdisciplinary field of biodiversity and health requires the examination of relevant scientific domains, such as biology, ecology, evolution, human medicine, animal medicine, anthropology, and law, and their epistemology and representation as well as scientific pluralism, which is crucial to establish genuine interdisciplinarity. Navigating the ethics-scape necessitates going beyond the hierarchy of science by recognising that scientific knowledge has implications for both scientific and non-scientific perspectives on the study of nature. The example of a Nipah virus outbreak is used to illustrate how the so-called "modern epidemiological" approach often focuses on risk factors associated with individual behavioural characteristics or collective practices, whereas the so-called "eco-social" approach focuses on global, socio-economic, and environmental factors that are the contextual causes of the health problem affecting the community. "Modern epidemiologists" aim to "correct" individual or practice factors using a "minimal set" of ethics, whereas "eco-social" scientists have to act systemically, which requires integrated research that acknowledges scientific pluralism, avoids the hierarchy of sciences, but accepts the pluralism of ethics and values.
本文探讨了生物多样性与人类和动物健康交叉领域研究的伦理意义。健康和卫生危机常常引发伦理辩论，尤其是在涉及强制接种疫苗、隔离或对家畜或野生动物进行大规模扑杀等破坏性干预措施时。在这类辩论中，可以凸显出“全球健康伦理”的出现。伦理和问责原则适用于科学研究的各个方面，包括其技术和工程应用，无论这些应用被视为“硬科学”，如医学、兽医学、农学或环境领域的前沿技术，还是“软科学”，如地方或全球治理、健康、社会生态系统和环境。生物多样性与健康这一跨学科领域的伦理思考需要审视相关科学领域，如生物学、生态学、进化、人类医学、动物医学、人类学和法律，以及它们的认识论、表现形式和科学多元性，这对于建立真正的跨学科性至关重要。在伦理领域中前行需要超越科学等级制度，认识到科学知识对自然研究的科学和非科学视角都有影响。以尼帕病毒爆发为例，说明所谓的“现代流行病学”方法通常侧重于与个体行为特征或集体行为相关的风险因素，而所谓的“生态社会”方法则侧重于影响社区健康问题的全球、社会经济和环境因素，这些因素是健康问题的背景成因。“现代流行病学家”旨在用一套“最低限度”的伦理规范来“纠正”个体或行为因素，而“生态社会”科学家则必须进行系统行动，这需要综合研究，承认科学多元性，避免科学等级制度，但接受伦理和价值观的多元性。
