This grant will support a research team, composed of a Swedish physicist (who measures effects of ionizing radiation) and a US philosopher (who investigates ethical issues in technological risk) to examine ethical assumptions and policy consequences of current radiation-protection standards for nuclear workers. The project has 7 objectives: to investigate the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) radiation-protection standards, including their ethical underpinnings and policy consequences; to assess the degree to which these IAEA norms presuppose more egalitarian or utilitarian ethics; to clarify the double standard for worker, versus public, exposure to ionizing radiation (worker standards are more lenient); to determine whether nuclear workers are likely to have given free informed consent to higher radiation risks they bear; to investigate workplace standards for free informed consent, as compared to those used in medical ethics; to trace the ethical consequences following from the norms governing worker exposures to ionizing radiation; and to determine the degree to which alternative principles would result in public-policy changes affecting the safety of nuclear workers. Ethical evaluation of radiation-protection standards for nuclear workers will involve seven questions: What are the main IAEA radiation-protection standards, and how do they differ from those for public exposure? Do IAEA radiation norms (based on the Justification, Optimization, and Dose-Limitation Principles) follow mainly utilitarian or egalitarian ethical principles? Which, if either, is more desirable for current society? For nuclear workers? For future generations? What are the ethical and evaluative presuppositions, strengths, and weaknesses of the traditional justification -- the compensating wage differential -- for the double standard for worker, versus public, exposures to ionizing radiation? What ethical conditions for free informed consent ought nuclear employers attempt to implement in the workplace? What are the ethical and evaluative presuppositions, strengths, and weaknesses of current nuclear regulations for worker consent? In addressing these questions, the project team will employ four methods that it has used previously, with successful results: (1) bibliographic research, (ii) assessment of ethical assumptions, (iii) two-stage ethical analysis, and (iv) case studies. After each year of research, a multidisciplinary group of nuclear-energy experts will evaluate project articles. The strengths of the physics-philosophy project team include 4 years of prior collaborative work and different opinions as to the pros and cons of using nuclear technology. Both are widely published scholars. They have had policy-related experience and hold offices in international risk-assessment societies. The potential impacts of the project include increased knowledge in physics, ethics, and economics; greater protection of worker health and safety; fostering excellence in multidisciplinary and international research; transnational cooperation in radiation protection; and improving international education and ethics related to worker safety and nuclear technology.
