Ethical assessment in radioactive waste management: A proposed reflective equilibrium-based deliberative approach

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 603-618

  Cotton, Matthew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Analytic deliberative decision making; Ethical assessment; Radioactive waste management; Reflective equilibrium

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC-DELIBERATIVE DECISION-MAKING; DECISION MAKING PROCESS; ETHICAL ASSESSMENT; ETHICAL ISSUES; ETHICAL THEORIES; INTEGRATIVE ASSESSMENT; NEW APPROACHES; POLITICAL CONTROVERSIES; REFLECTIVE EQUILIBRIUM; REFRAMING; SOCIOTECHNICAL; STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT; TOPDOWN; UK COMMITTEE;

CONCRETE PAVEMENTS; DECISION MAKING; INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT; RADIOACTIVE WASTES; RADIOACTIVITY;

WASTE MANAGEMENT;

EID: 70449565655     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669870802519455     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Atherton, E., and M. Poole. 2001. The problem of the UK's radioactive waste: What have we learnt? Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 26: 296-302.
2. Ball, D.J. 2006. Deliberating over Britain's nuclear waste. Journal of Risk Research 9, no.1: 1-11.
3. Baylis, F. 2000. Expert testimony by persons trained in ethical reasoning: The case of Andrew Sawatzky. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 28: 224-231
4. Blowers, A., ed. 2006. Ethics and decision making for radioactive waste. London: Committee on Radioactive Waste Management.
5. Burg, W., and T. van Willigenburg. 1998. Reflective equilibrium: Essays in honour of Robert Heeger. London: Kluwer.
6. Burgess, J., A. Stirling, J. Clark, G. Davies, M. Eames, K. Staley, and S. Williamson. 2007. Deliberative mapping: A novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions. Public Understanding of Science 16, no.3: 299-322.
7. Chambers, R. 1997. Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. London: IT Publications. Chilvers, J. 2007. Toward analytic-deliberative forms of risk governance in the UK? Reflecting on learning in radioactive waste. Journal of Risk Research 10, no.2: 197-222.
8. Chilvers, J., J. Burgess, and J. Murlis. 2003. Securing public confidence in radioactive waste management: Developing a vision for a process and stakeholder engagement. London: University College London.
9. Cohen, S. 2004. The nature of moral reasoning: The framework and activities of ethical deliberation, argument, and decision-making. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
10. Collier, D. 2006. CoRWM final evaluation statement. Report No. C2022 R08-3. Oxford: Faulkland Associates.
11. Condit, C.M. 1987. Crafting virtue: The rhetorical construction of public morality. Quarterly Journal of Speech 74: 446-455
12. Cotton, M. 2008. Developing stakeholder and community decision-support tools for the consideration of ethics in UK radioactive waste management policy. Unpublished thesis, University of East Anglia.
13. Daniels, N. 1996. Justice and justification: Reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. DEFRA, BERR and Devolved Administrations for Wales and Northern Ireland. 2008. Managing radioactive waste safely: A framework for implementing geological disposal. London: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Devolved Administrations for Wales and Northern Ireland.
15. Des Jardins, J.R. 1997. Ethics, energy, and responsibilities to future generations. In Environmental ethics: An introduction to environmental philosophy, 65-88. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
16. Dryzek, J.S. 1990. Discursive democracy: Politics, policy and political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. ---. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Durant, D. 2007. Burying gloablly, acting locally: Control and co-option in nuclear waste management. Science and Public Policy 34, no.7: 515-528
19. Easterling, D., and H. Kunreuther. 1995. The dilemma of siting a high-level nuclear waste repository. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
20. Fabre, C., and D. Miller. 2003. Justice and culture: Rawls, Sen, Nussbaum and O'Neill. Political Studies Review 1: 4-17.
21. Fischer, F. 1993. Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sciences 26: 165-187
22. Fischhoff, B., A. Bostrom, and M.J. Quadrel. 1993. Risk perception and communication. Annual Review of Public Health 14: 183-203.
23. Fishkin, J. 1995. The voice of the people. New Haven: CT: Yale University Press.
24. Goodman, N. 1955. Fact, fiction, and forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. 2004. Why deliberative democracy? Oxford: Princeton University Press.
26. Harper, D. 2002. Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies 17, no.1: 13-26.
27. Herzik, E.B., and E.R. Statham, eds. 1993. When rationality and good science are not enough: Science, politics and the policy process. Westport: Greenwood Press.
28. Huxham, M., and D. Sumner. 1999. Emotion, science and rationality: The case of brent spar. Environmental Values 8, no.3: 349-368
29. Imwinkelried, E.J. 2005. Expert testimony by ethicists: What should be the norm? The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 33, no.2: 198-221.
30. Irwin, A., and B. Wynne. 1996. Misunderstanding science: The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Jasanoff, S. 1997. Civilization and madness: The great BSE scare of 1996. Public Understanding of Science 6: 221-232
32. ---. 1999. The songlines of risk. Environmental Values 8, no.2: 135-152
33. Jaworowski, Z. 1999. Radiation risk and ethics. Physics Today 52, no.9: 24-29
34. Joffe, H. 2003. Risk: From perception to social representation. British Journal of Social Psychology 42: 55-73.
35. Kaiser, M. 2004. Practical ethics in search of a toolbox: Ethics of science and technology at the cross roads. Oslo: National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT).
36. Kaiser, M., K. Millar, E.-M. Forsberg, O. Baune, B. Mepham, E. Thorstensen, and S. Tomkins. 2004. Decision-making frameworks. In Evaluation of ethical bio-technology assessment tools for agriculture and food production: Interim report ethical bio-TA tools, ed. V. Beekman, 16-17 The Hague: Agricultural Economics Research Institute.
37. Kaler, J. 1999. What's the good of ethical theory? Business Ethics: A European Review 8, no.4: 206-213
38. Keller, L.R., and R.K. Sarin. 1988. Equity in social risk: Some empirical observations. Risk Analysis 8: 135-146
39. Kemp, R. 1992. The politics of radioactive waste disposal. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
40. Levine, P. 2007. Education policy and the limits of technocracy. Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly 27, no. 3/4: 17-21.
41. Malone, C.R. 1991. High-level nuclear waste disposal: A perspective on technocracy and democracy. Growth and Change 22: 69-74.
42. McCarthy, J. 2003. Principlism or narrative ethics: Must we choose between them? Medical Humanities 29: 65-71.
43. Novak, J.D. 1990. Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27, no.10: 937-949
44. O'Neill, O. 2002. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. Openshaw, S., S. Carver, and J. Fernie. 1989. Britain's nuclear waste: Safety and siting. London: Belhaven Press.
46. O'Riordan, T., and J. Burgess. 1999. Deliberative and inclusionary processes: A report from two seminars. Norwich: University of East and Anglia and University College London.
47. Pellizzoni, L. 2001. The myth of the best argument: Power, deliberation and reason. British Journal of Sociology 52, no.1: 59-86.
48. Rawles, K. 2000. Ethical issues in the disposal of radioactive waste. Harwell: United Kingdom Nirex Limited.
49. Rawls, J. 1995. Reply to Habermas. The Journal of Philosophy 92, no.3: 132-180
50. ---. 1999. A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. Reber, B. 2006. The ethics of participatory technology assessment. Technikfolgenabshätzung - Theorie und Praxis 2, no.15: 73-81.
52. Rosa, E.A., and W.R. Freudenburg. 1993. The historical development of public reactions to nuclear power: Implications for nuclear waste policy. In Public reactions to nuclear waste: Citizens' views of repository siting, ed. R.E. Dunlap, M.E. Kraft, and E.A. Rosa, 32-63. London: Duke University Press.
53. Rossi, J. 1997. Participation run amok: The cost of mass participation for deliberative agency decision making. Northwestern University Law Review 92: 173-249.
54. Satterfield, T. 2001. In search of value literacy: Suggestions for the elicitation of environmental values. Environmental Values 10, no.3: 331-359
55. Scanlon, T.M. 2002. Rawls on justification. In The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, ed. S. Freeman, 139-167 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. Shanahan, J., L. Pelstring, and K. McComas. 1999. Using narratives to think about environmental attitude and behaviour: An exploratory study. Society and Natural Resources 12: 405-419
57. Shrader-Frechette, K., and R. Cooke. 2004. Ethics and choosing appropriate means to an end: Problems with coal mine and nuclear workplace safety. Risk Analysis 24, no.1: 147-156
58. Sjöberg, L. 2001. Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis 21, no.1: 189-198
59. Sjoberg, L., and B.M. Drottz-Sjoberg. 2001. Fairness, risk and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository. Journal of Risk Research 4, no.1: 75-101.
60. Sjöberg, L., and G. Torell. 1993. The development of risk acceptance and moral evaluation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 34: 223-236
61. Sjöberg, L., and E. Winroth. 1986. Risk, moral value of actions, and mood. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 27: 191-208.
62. Slovic, P., J. Flynn, and M. Layman. 2000. Perceived risk, trust and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 254: 1603-1607
63. Vari, A. 1996. Public perceptions about equity and fairness: Siting low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities in the U.S. and Hungary. Risk: Health, Safety and Environment 7: 186-197
64. Vari, A., P. Reagan-Cirincione, and J.L. Mumpower. 1994. LLRW disposal facility siting: Successes and failures in six countries. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
65. Viklund, M. 2003. Trust and risk perception: A Western European cross-national study. Risk Analysis 23: 727-738
66. Warner, F. 1992. Risk: Analysis, perception and management. London: The Royal Society.
67. White, S. 2003. New politics of ownership: Policy options and public opinion. Oxford: Centre for the Study of Democratic Government, Department of Politics and International Relations, Oxford University.
68. Wynne, B. 2001. Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture 10: 445-481
69. Zwart, I. 2007. Local deliberation and the favouring of nature. Environmental Values 16, no.4: 485-511.