Geo-Ethics: What to do When Approval Authority Decisions Contradict Sound Science?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three case studies in Canada are evaluated where a regulatory authority ruled that measures considered by some professionals to be without scientific basis and less protective of human health or the environment were the required courses of action. The three projects were in the field of environmental geoscience. In all three cases, the solution proposed by a Professional Geoscientist (P.Geo.) was opposed by a representative of a regulatory body that held authority for approval. The final outcomes that were approved by the regulator were less protective of human health (increased exposure to potential contaminants) and/or the environment (more resources used; higher contaminant exposure). In two of the three cases, the solutions were also more expensive to the client and the taxpayer. This paper explores the practice of professionalism in geoscience versus regulatory authorities that hold jurisdiction over geoscience in a broad sense. In each of the three cases, the professional opinions and analysis of the P.Geo. working for a private sector client were overridden by a professional (P.Geo. or Professional Engineer) in an approval authority. These three studies highlight the ethical decisions required by professional geoscientists in the face of regulators who hold control over areas of geoscience. Although the training of professionals is similar, regulators appear to be influenced by perceived risk as opposed to actual risk based on scientific evidence. Similarly, some policies do not have a solid scientific basis. As a result, sound scientific reasoning and resulting rational decisions may be hindered in regulatory decision-making.RÉSUMÉTrois études de cas canadiens sont évaluées, où une autorité règlementaire a statué comme requises des mesures qui avaient été déclarées par des professionnels comme étant sans fondements scientifiques et moins protectrices pour la santé humaine ou les milieux de vie. Il s’agit de trois projets du domaine des géosciences des milieux de vie. Dans les trois cas, la solution proposée par un géologue professionnel (P.Geo.) a été contestée par un représentant d'un organisme règlementaire décisionnel. Les résultats définitifs approuvés par l'organisme règlementaire protégeait moins la santé humaine (augmentation de l'exposition aux contaminants potentiels) et/ou le milieu de vie (plus de ressources utilisées; augmentation de l'exposition aux contaminants). Dans deux des trois cas, les solutions étaient également plus coûteuses pour le client et le contribuable. Le présent article explore la pratique professionnelle en géosciences par rapport à celle des autorités règlementaires qui ont juridiction dans le domaine des géosciences en général. Dans chacun de ces trois cas, les avis professionnels et l'analyse de P.Geo. travaillant pour un client du secteur privé ont été supplantés par celui d’un professionnel (P.Geo. ou ingénieur professionnel) œuvrant a sein d’une autorité règlementaire. Ces trois études mettent en lumière des décisions éthiques attendues de géoscientifiques professionnels face à des autorités règlementaires décisionnelles en certains domaines géoscientifiques. La formation de ces professionnels est similaire, mais il semble que les régulateurs soient influencés par le risque perçu plutôt que par le risque réel établi scientifiquement. De même, certaines politiques n'ont pas une base scientifique solide. Il s’en suit qu’un raisonnement scientifique solide et des décisions rationnelles qui en résultent peuvent être contrecarrés par une décision règlementaire.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.064 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".