This research enables a biologist and a philosopher to examine two ethical issues related to science. On the abstract level, they will consider what ethical principles are relevant to ecologists' interpretations of uncertain scientific results that might have consequences for environmental policy. Concretely, they will consider how ecologists should apply these principles to a current problem in policy, preservation of the unique and rare Florida scrub habitat. The investigators begin having completed an analysis of normative assumptions involved in ecological concepts and conclusions. In this project, they will consider how conflicts between ethical principles can be resolved, by developing second-order principles and examining alternative, plausible consequences from their use. They will test their results from this procedure by examining the case of the preservation of the Florida scrub habitat. Because the case is environmentally significant but biologically uncertain, the ethical constraints on how to interpret research relevant to its preservation are likely to be applicable in many situations of environmental ethics and public policy. The research has three objectives: to examine the ethical obligations of ecologists in interpreting and disseminating their results; to identify the normative assumptions in alternative positions on how ecologists ought to interpret their results in problematic cases; and to assess the consequences, in a specific case, of taking particular stands on interpretation and dissemination. The results should illuminate public and professional debates about ethical standards for science and scientific obligations to the public.
