Environmental-health scientists and physicians are increasingly confirming the environmental (including developmental - that is, in-utero and early post-natal) origins of much disease, dysfunction, and death. How should citizens, scientists, and society respond to these disturbing scientific findings?
Using both scientific and ethical analysis, this talk gives 5 arguments that virtually all citizens and scientists (to varying degrees and for slightly different reasons, depending on their expertise, ability, profession, etc) have justice-based duties to be advocates for environmental health. Justice demands they/we help preventing serious, pollution-induced health harms, especially "developmental toxicity" and "genomic instability." The 5 main arguments of the talk focus on 3 main case studies: air pollution from fossil fuels, pesticide/herbicide use, and waste incineration. These 5 arguments are
These objections include, for instance, scientists' alleged duties to remain neutral and factual, scientists' not intending harm, scientific uncertainties about pollution harm, and allegations that more stringent pollution controls will harm the economy.
Diversity and impact of invasive crayfish and crayfish plague: from Czechia to continental scale
A new experiment to unravel the Impact of Biodiversity and Climate Variability on the functioning of grasslands
Anticipating biome shifts