taking action on developmental toxicity scientists’ duties to protect children采取行动保护儿童发育毒性科学家的职责.pdf

Shrader-Frechette Environmental Health 2012, 11:61 /content/11/1/61 COMMENTARY Open Access Taking action on developmental toxicity: Scientists’ duties to protect children Kristin Shrader-Frechette1,2* Abstract Background: Although adaptation and proper biological functioning require developmental programming, pollutant interference can cause developmental toxicity or DT. Objectives: This commentary assesses whether it is ethical for citizens/physicians/scientists to allow avoidable DT. Methods: Using conceptual, economic, ethical, and logical analysis, the commentary assesses what major ethical theories and objectors would say regarding the defensibility of allowing avoidable DT. Results: The commentary argues that (1) none of the four major ethical theories (based, respectively, on virtue, natural law, utility, or equity) can consistently defend avoidable DT because it unjustifiably harms, respectively, individual human flourishing, human life, the greatest good, and equality. (2) Justice also requires leaving “as much and as good” biological resources for all, including future generations possibly harmed if epigenetic change is heritable. (3) Scientists/physicians have greater justice-based duties, than ordinary/average citizens, to help stop DT because they help cause it and have greater professional abilities/opportunities to help stop it. (4) Scientists/ physicians likewise have greater justice-based duties, than ordinary/average citizens, to help stop DT because they benefit more from it, given their relatively greater education/consumption/income. The paper shows that major objections to (3)-(4) fail on logical, ethical, or scientific grounds, then closes with practical suggestions for implementing its proposals. Conclusions: Because allowing avoidable DT is ethically indefensible, citizens—an