Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T21:03:36.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ethics in weed science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert L. Zimdahl
Robert L. Zimdahl*
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523; rzimdahl@ceres.agsci.colostate.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed science, like most sciences, has distanced itself from social and ethical discourse in theory and practice. This symposium illustrates my point. The 38th meeting of our society is the first time there has been a formal discussion of the ethical aspects of our work. Weed science, we often believe, is value free, as science ought to be. But neither basic nor applied weed science is value free; they are value laden. Operative values include meeting basic human needs through improved food production, promoting the common good through abundant food, improving people's lives through efficient production of safe food, achieving agricultural sustainability, and increasing efficient food and fiber production and farmer profit. Truth pursued via the scientific method is valued and respected, as is belief in the goodness of scientific and technological progress. Most of these values rest on an ethical foundation known as utilitarianism. Most weed scientists and their colleagues in agricultural sciences are utilitarian in that they believe their work should be useful to humans and should promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. What weed scientists believe and stand for and the validity of the ethical foundation of their utilitarian convictions ought to be central subjects of the weed scientist's research and teaching. Ethical reflection does not necessarily imply criticism or a need for reform, but it does demand intellectual clarity and an ability to affirm who we are, what we do, and what we value. Weed scientists should engage in an exchange about the ideas that are the end result of their experiences and discuss the experiences that give shape, substance, and depth to those ideas. In the absence of internal ethical reflection and value clarification, external distortions—including public criticism—will define the moral universe weed scientists must work in. Without embarrassment, weed scientists have to learn to ask about the ethical foundation of their science.

Keywords

Ethicsrights-based ethicsutilitarianismvalues

Information

Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 6 , December 1998, pp. 636 - 639
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Bailey, L. H. 1915. The Holy Earth. Lebanon, PA: Sowers, p. 9.Google Scholar
Berry, W. 1977. The Unsettling of America Culture and Agriculture. New York: Avon Books, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar
Bressler, M. 1978. The academic ethic and value consensus. Pages 37–48 in The Search for a Value Consensus. A Rockefeller Foundation Conference. New York: Rockefeller Foundation.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, J. 1986. The value measure in public agricultural research. Pages 28–38 in Busch, L. and Lacy, W. B., eds. The Agricultural Scientific Enterprise: A System in Transition. Westview Special Studies in Agricultural Science and Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Comstock, G. 1995. Do agriculturalists need a new, an ecocentric ethic? 1994 Presidential address to the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society. J. Agric. Hum. Values 12: 2–16.Google Scholar
Conviser, R. 1982. Appropriate agriculture. Pages 436–452 in Haynes, R. and Lanier, R., eds. Agriculture, Change and Human Values—A Multidisciplinary Conference. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, K. A. 1982. Global aspects of agriculture and human values. Pages 87–112 in Haynes, R. and Lanier, R. eds. Agriculture, Change and Human Values—A Multidisciplinary Conference. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.Google Scholar
Danbom, D. 1997. Past visions of American agriculture. Pages 3–30 in Lockeretz, W., ed. Visions of American Agriculture. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Day, B. E. 1978. The morality of agronomy. Pages 19–28 in Pendleton, J. W., ed. Agronomy in Today's Society. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy Special Publ. 33.Google Scholar
Dundon, S. 1986. The moral factor in innovative research. Pages 39–51 in Busch, L. and Lacy, W. B., eds. The Agricultural Scientific Enterprise: A System in Transition. Westview Special Studies in Agriculture Science and Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, P. R. and Ehrlich, A. H. 1990. The Population Explosion. A Touchstone Book. New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 162.Google Scholar
Ferré, F. 1994. No hiding place: the inescapability of agricultural ethics. Pages 11–17 in Agricultural Ethics: Issues for the 21st Century. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy Special Publ. 57.Google Scholar
Freudenberger, C. D. 1994. Whar is good agriculture? Pages 43–53 in Agricultural Ethics: Issues for the 21st century. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy Special Publ. 57.Google Scholar
Fukuoka, M. 1978. The One-Straw Revolution. New York: Bantam Books, p. 103.Google Scholar
Goulet, D. 1971. An ethical model for the study of values. Harv. Educ. Rev. 41: 205–227.Google Scholar
Kirschenmann, F. 1993. Rediscovering American agriculture. Word World 13: 294–303.Google Scholar
Pais, J. D. 1982. Ethical dimensions of agricultural research. Pages 869–893 in Haynes, R. and Lanier, R., eds. Agriculture, Change and Human Values—A Multidisciplinary Conference. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.Google Scholar
Rollin, B. 1995. The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals. New York: Cambridge University Press. 241 p.Google Scholar
Rollin, B. 1996. Bad ethics, good ethics and the genetic engineering of animals in agriculture. J. Anim. Sci. 74: 535–541.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1972. Pesticides—a value question. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. June:109–110.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1996. Ethics in weed science. Pages 1349–1353 in Second International Weed Control Congress. Copenhagen, Denmark: Department of Weed Control and Pesticide Ecology.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1998. Rethinking agricultural research roles. J. Agric. Hum. Values 15: 77–84.Google Scholar