Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: ethics
- Creators: Minteer, Ben
- Member of: ASU Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Description
Professional environmental scientists are increasingly under pressure to inform and even shape policy. Scientists engage policy effectively when they act within the bounds of objectivity, credibility, and authority, yet significant portions of the scientific community condemn such acts as advocacy. They argue that it is nonobjective, that it risks damaging the credibility of science, and that it is an abuse of authority. This means objectivity, credibility, and authority deserve direct attention before the policy advocacy quagmire can be reasonably understood. I investigate the meaning of objectivity in science and that necessarily brings the roles of values in science into question. This thesis is a sociological study of the roles environmental values play in the decisions of environmental scientists working in the institution of academia. I argue that the gridlocked nature of the environmental policy advocacy debates can be traced to what seems to be a deep tension and perhaps confusion among these scientists. I provide empirical evidence of this tension and confusion through the use of in depth semi-structured interviews among a sampling of academic environmental scientists (AES). I show that there is a struggle for these AES to reconcile their support for environmentalist values and goals with their commitment to scientific objectivity and their concerns about being credible scientists in the academy. Additionally, I supplemented my data collection with environmental sociology and history, plus philosophy and sociology of science literatures. With this, I developed a system for understanding values in science (of which environmental values are a subset) with respect to the limits of my sample and study. This examination of respondent behavior provides support that it is possible for AES to act on their environmental values without compromising their objectivity, credibility, and authority. These scientists were not likely to practice this in conversations with colleagues and policy-makers, but were likely to behave this way with students. The legitimate extension of this behavior is a viable route for continuing to integrate the human and social dimensions of environmental science into its practice, its training, and its relationship with policy.
ContributorsAppleton, Caroline (Author) / Minteer, Ben (Thesis advisor) / Chew, Matt (Committee member) / Armendt, Brad (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
Wildlife rehabilitation as a practice in the United States exists in a complicated ethical landscape. The Wildlife Rehabilitator's Code of Ethics exists to guide the profession and states that rehabilitators must respect the wildness and maintain the dignity of an animal in their care. This thesis explores the question: How do the attitudes and actions of wildlife rehabilitators exemplify the ways in which they understand and enact respect for an animal’s dignity and wildness while in their care? Additionally, in what circumstances do rehabilitators align and diverge from each other in their interpretation and demonstration of this respect? These questions were answered through a literature review, interviews with rehabilitators, and site visits to wildlife rehabilitation centers in the Phoenix metropolitan area. My results suggest that rehabilitators are aligned in their understanding of respect for wildness and dignity as it applies to the animals in their care that are actively undergoing rehabilitation. Rehabilitators achieved consensus on the idea that they should interact with the animals as little as possible while providing their medically necessary care. Rehabilitators began to diverge when considering the animals in their sanctuary spaces. Specifically, they varied in their perception of wildness in sanctuary animals, which informed how some saw their responsibilities to the animals. Lesser perceived wildness correlated to increased acceptance of forming affectionate relationships with the sanctuary animals, and even feelings of obligation to form these relationships. Based on my research, I argue that the Wildlife Rehabilitator's Code of Ethics should be revised to reflect the specific boundary that wildlife rehabilitators identified in the rehabilitation space and provide substantive guidance as to what respecting wildness and dignity means in this field.
ContributorsBernat, Isabella Elyse (Author) / Minteer, Ben (Thesis advisor) / Ellison, Karin (Committee member) / Schoon, Michael (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
This project analyzes the efforts of Seoul Grand Park Zoo (the largest and most important zoo on the Korean peninsula) to develop and achieve the highest standards in conservation, education, animal welfare, and research over the last three decades. Founded primarily as an entertainment venue in 1984, the zoo has struggled to become a scientific center that adequately provides for the animals under its care and promotes the advancement and dissemination of knowledge. Drawing on interviews from zoo officials, academics, conservationists, and animal-rights activists, I explore the animal welfare management and conservation priorities of a prominent Asian institution. Although the zoo has made significant improvements in animal welfare, it remains constrained by limited resources and government indifference. These constraints have also restricted the zoo’s ambition to become a major center for conservation; it currently concentrates on a handful of projects with broad popular appeal. Based on my interviews, greater collaboration, better communication with other researchers, and more systematic sharing of data would be especially beneficial for expanding the zoo’s conservation agenda. As research and conservation become a more prominent part of the zoo’s portfolio, potential conflicts may arise with zoo’s current emphasis on the welfare of the individual animals under its care.
ContributorsClay, Anne Safiya (Author) / Minteer, Ben (Thesis advisor) / Collins, James (Committee member) / Broglio, Ronald (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015