Conference PaperPDF Available

Geoethics needs multi-dimensional research agendas and practice

Authors:

Abstract

Geoethics have been developed as global ethics to face grand challenges for humanity by Peppoloni and Di Capua in 2020. Complementary to the UN Declaration of Human Rights the proposal of a responsible human development charter formulates universal duties to demonstrate ecological humanism. Commensurate with the need to operationalise such ambitions this paper suggests a multi-pronged approach. Similar to conversations focused primarily on other scientific fields’ research agendas and practice, the earth and marine sciences would benefit from a more representative participation of actors from all fields of knowledge, genders, geographical areas, ethnic backgrounds and world views. Journals like Nature and other high-impact publications start giving more space to voices arguing for gendered research, more opportunities in academia and publishing to women and under-represented societal groups to achieve higher quality research for beneficial approaches to societal challenges. One essential aspect is identifying and overcoming their tacit and not so tacit discrimination with a view to enable the much needed diversification of perspectives, cultures and knowledge sources in the search for a more viable trade-off between different possible responses. Another, often linked, aspect is to ask questions in ways explicitly addressing a wider spectrum of societal risks and benefits. This is particularly obvious in health research mostly based on white male participants in clinical trials with high percentages of costly failures. But as recently becoming apparent, it also applies e.g. to AI research, now a ubiquitous tool in many research, production and service areas. Among the responses is the obligation for European research proposals to address gender in most thematic areas, including the geosciences, a requirement that almost certainly needs greater attention to avoid tokenism. Moreover, particular attention is warranted to seek understanding and solutions for and with the substantial small-scale and artisanal sectors in mining, fisheries and other natural resource areas reviewed in earlier research. While traditional social structures can be important in some regions, unintended consequences of demand in globalised markets with strong wealth stratification are prone to create opportunistic rushes. Such attempts to get out of poverty very often come at a high cost to human and environmental health. These challenges are best addressed by interdisciplinary and otherwise diversified research teams and inclusive forms of field testing conditions and impact of measures. These should be able to cover the multiple dimensions through in-depth, interactive study and exploration of practical approaches with socially, economically and environmentally acceptable trade-offs. Investment in inclusive quality education is expected to underpin longer-term advances towards living the principles of geoethics.
Geoethics needs multi-dimensional research agendas and practice
Cornelia E. Nauen
Geoethics have been developed as global ethics to face grand challenges for humanity by Peppoloni
and Di Capua in 2020. Complementary to the UN Declaration of Human Rights the proposal of a
responsible human development charter formulates universal duties to demonstrate ecological
humanism. Commensurate with the need to operationalise such ambitions this paper suggests a
multi-pronged approach.
Similar to conversations focused primarily on other scientific fields’ research agendas and practice,
the earth and marine sciences would benefit from a more representative participation of actors from
all fields of knowledge, genders, geographical areas, ethnic backgrounds and world views. Journals
like Nature and other high-impact publications start giving more space to voices arguing for
gendered research, more opportunities in academia and publishing to women and under-represented
societal groups to achieve higher quality research for beneficial approaches to societal challenges.
One essential aspect is identifying and overcoming their tacit and not so tacit discrimination with a
view to enable the much needed diversification of perspectives, cultures and knowledge sources in
the search for a more viable trade-off between different possible responses.
Another, often linked, aspect is to ask questions in ways explicitly addressing a wider spectrum of
societal risks and benefits. This is particularly obvious in health research mostly based on white
male participants in clinical trials with high percentages of costly failures. But as recently becoming
apparent, it also applies e.g. to AI research, now a ubiquitous tool in many research, production and
service areas. Among the responses is the obligation for European research proposals to address
gender in most thematic areas, including the geosciences, a requirement that almost certainly needs
greater attention to avoid tokenism.
Moreover, particular attention is warranted to seek understanding and solutions for and with the
substantial small-scale and artisanal sectors in mining, fisheries and other natural resource areas
reviewed in earlier research. While traditional social structures can be important in some regions,
unintended consequences of demand in globalised markets with strong wealth stratification are
prone to create opportunistic rushes. Such attempts to get out of poverty very often come at a high
cost to human and environmental health.
These challenges are best addressed by interdisciplinary and otherwise diversified research teams
and inclusive forms of field testing conditions and impact of measures. These should be able to
cover the multiple dimensions through in-depth, interactive study and exploration of practical
approaches with socially, economically and environmentally acceptable trade-offs. Investment in
inclusive quality education is expected to underpin longer-term advances towards living the
principles of geoethics.
How to cite: Nauen, C. E.: Geoethics needs multi-dimensional research agendas and practice, EGU
General Assembly 2021, online, 19–30 Apr 2021, EGU21-5413, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-
egu21-5413, 2021.
Chapter
This essay presents a deeper look into the impacts of using modeling to support water management decision-making lies on potential periodic reconsiderations of conceptual and mathematical model premises. Geoethics brings a relationship between the geoscientists and modeling experts into the social responsibility of using modeling for water management and governance. The validation of those models is crucial to assess how trustworthy is the model applied for the decision making. Ready-to-go practices often do not help us to understand when we can call a model assessment as validation or not. This chapter suggests considering the validation process as an open question on water modeling which is more complex than merely calculating model assessment indexes. Current and future generations of geoscientists with expertise in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and/or geostatistics should clarify validation assumptions wherever possible. Thus, the model validity for its application can be harnessed by another one, resulting in a more flexible and creative usage, allowing the interaction increase between the geoscientist and the decision-makers. Geoethics is a tool that integrates ethics, geosciences, and human activities which are presented here into a new tool for a validation addressing of water modeling.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.