Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Strength of Ethical Matrixes as a Tool for Normative Analysis Related to Technological Choices: The Case of Geological Disposal for Radioactive Waste

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ethical matrix is a participatory tool designed to structure ethical reflection about the design, the introduction, the development or the use of technologies. Its collective implementation, in the context of participatory decision-making, has shown its potential usefulness. On the contrary, its implementation by a single researcher has not been thoroughly analyzed. The aim of this paper is precisely to assess the strength of ethical matrixes implemented by a single researcher as a tool for conceptual normative analysis related to technological choices. Therefore, the ethical matrix framework is applied to the management of high-level radioactive waste, more specifically to retrievable and non-retrievable geological disposal. The results of this analysis show that the usefulness of ethical matrixes is twofold and that they provide a valuable input for further decision-making. Indeed, by using ethical matrixes, implicit ethically relevant issues were revealed—namely issues of equity associated with health impacts and differences between close and remote future generations regarding ethical impacts. Moreover, the ethical matrix framework was helpful in synthesizing and comparing systematically the ethical impacts of the technologies under scrutiny, and hence in highlighting the potential ethical conflicts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This participatory process can be implemented from a “top-down” perspective, with participants giving their opinion about each cell of the pre-defined matrix (Gamborg 2002), or it can be implemented from a “bottom-up” perspective, with participants having the possibility to really construct the matrix by determining the stakeholders and ethical principles they consider to be relevant (Kaiser et al. 2007).

  2. Some stakeholders, who share the same values and interests or the same function, are grouped for practical reasons when implementing the matrix. Among these, NGOs are considered with the groups they are defending the interests—most commonly local communities or the environment. The same goes for professional organizations such as unions and associations who are defending workers’ interests.

  3. The following analysis is a brief synthesis of (Kermisch et al. 2016).

  4. Our point here is that workers are one of the least well-off groups, but that is “only” with respect to the health impact. It is important to keep in mind that well-being cannot be reduced to health and that, for a global analysis of the well-being of workers, it would be necessary to balance heath impact with other factors such as economic well-being.

  5. If the matrix were to be used as a support for decision-making, then it would be necessary to balance the different ethically relevant issues associated with equity—health impacts and wage compensations, most notably—in order to determine the fairest option in general (and not only with respect to the health impact). However, in this study, the aim was not to weigh the different factors to be taken into account, but rather, to see if some issues were still in need of an in-depth analysis. Hence, the further step of balancing the different factors was not made in order to avoid to take a stand about whether health issues can or cannot be compensated financially, which is a question that would require a separate paper. Finally, as mentionned previously, the issue of compensation in itself was not thoroughly studied insofar as compensation is more related to the decision process than to the technical options. Therefore compensation is not a discriminating issue when comparing the different management options.

  6. The following analysis is a brief synthesis of (Kermisch 2016).

  7. This qualitative indicator is chosen, insofar as the aim of that paper was not to provide a quantitative assessment of safety for the different HLRW management options—which would have been unrealistic without reference to a specific project and location.

  8. For a thorough analysis of weaknesses of the matrix, see (Cotton 2009a, b; Kaiser et al. 2007; Schroeder and Palmer 2003).

References

  • Achillas, C., et al. (2013). The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to tackle waste management problems: A literature review. Waste Management and Research, 31(2), 115–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrianov, A., et al. (2015). Reexamining the ethics of nuclear technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(4), 999–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asveld, L., & Roeser, S. (Eds.). (2009). The ethics of technological risk. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmans, A., et al. (2015). The participatory turn in radioactive waste management: Deliberation and the social–technical divide. Journal of Risk Research, 18(3), 363–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, T., et al. (1990). Nuclear waste management: An application of the multicriteria PROMETHEE methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 44(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, M. (2009a). Evaluating the ‘ethical matrix’ as a radioactive waste management deliberative decision-support tool. Environmental Values, 18(5), 153–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, M. (2009b). Ethical assessment in radioactive waste management: A proposed reflective equilibrium-based deliberative approach. Journal of Risk Research, 12(5), 603–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, M. (2012). Industry and stakeholder perspectives on the social and ethical aspects of radioactive waste management options. Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, 11(1), 8–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cranor, C. (2009). A plea for a rich conception of risks. In L. Asveld & S. Roeser (Eds.), The ethics of technological risk (pp. 27–39). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crisp, R. (2013). Well-being. In Zalt, E. (Ed.) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/well-being/. Accessed 15 November 2015.

  • de-Shalit, A. (1995). Why posterity matters: Environmental policies and future generations. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamborg, C. (2002). The acceptability of forest management practices: An analysis of ethical accounting and the ethical matrix. Forest Policy and economics, 4, 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. (2009). Technology assessment: Concepts and methods. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 1103–1146). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1–2), 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagmann, J. (2012). Fukushima: Probing the analytical and epistemological limits of risk analysis. Journal of Risk Research, 15(7), 801–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. (2004). Philosophical perspectives on risk. Techné, 8(1), 10–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • IAEA. (1995). The principles of radioactive waste management. Safety series no. 111-F.

  • IAEA. (2007). IAEA safety glossary. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1290_web.pdf. Accessed 14 August 2015.

  • IAEA. (2009). Geological disposal of radioactive waste: Technological implications for retrievability. Report NW-T-1.19. http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/8022/Geological-Disposal-of-Radioactive-Waste-Technological-Implications-for-Retrievability. Accessed 14 August 2015.

  • ICRP. (2013). Radiological protection in geological disposal of long-lived solid radioactive waste. ICRP publication 122. Annals of the ICRP, 42(3).

  • Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, K., et al. (2011). Facilitating ethical reflection among scientists using the ethical matrix. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(3), 425–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, M., & Forsberg, E. (2001). Assessing fisheries—using an ethical matrix in a participatory process. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14, 191–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, M., et al. (2007). Developing the ethical matrix as a decision support framework: GM fish as a case study. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20, 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R. (1984). Equity issues in radioactive waste management. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kermisch, C. (2014). Les matrices éthiques au service des technologies à risques. Le cas de la gestion des déchets radioactifs à longue durée de vie. Actes du 20ème Congrès de Maîtrise des risques et de sûreté de fonctionnement, actes électroniques, 2016.

  • Kermisch, C. (2016). Specifying the concept of future generations for addressing issues related to high-level radioactive waste. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(6), 1797–1811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kermisch, C., Depaus, C., & Labeau, P. E. (2016). A contribution to the analysis of equity associated with high-level radioactive waste management. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 92, 40–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laes, E., & Bombaerts, G. (2006). Constructing acceptable RWM approaches: The politics of participation. WM Symposia, Tucson. http://publications.sckcen.be/dspace/handle/10038/287. Accessed 15 September 2015.

  • Mepham, B. (2000). A framework for the ethical analysis of novel foods: The ethical matrix. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 165–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mepham, B., Kaiser, M., Thorstensen, E., Tomkins, S., & Millar, K. (2006). Ethical matrix manual. The Hague: LEI. http://estframe.net/ethical_bio_ta_tools_project/content_2/text_2c81d261-b7a8-43e8-8f1e-d724b43e2ba3/1346076649086/et2_manual_em_binnenwerk_45p.pdf. Accessed 15 November 2015.

  • NEA. (2012). Reversibility of decisions and retrievability of radioactive waste. Report NEA 7085. https://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/2012/7085-reversibility.pdf. Accessed 14 August 2015.

  • NEA. (2013). Stakeholder confidence in radioactive waste management. Report NEA 6988. http://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/docs/2013/6988-fsc-glossary.pdf. Accessed 14 August 2015.

  • ONDRAF. (2011). Waste plan for the long-term management of conditioned high-level and/or long lived radioactive waste and overview of related issues. Report NIROND 2011-02E. http://www.ondraf-plandechets.be/nieuw/downloads/Waste%20plan%20-%20English.pdf. Accessed 14 August 2015.

  • ONDRAF (Contracting authority). (2010). Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) pour le plan déchets de l’ONDRAF. Report 5249-506-073. http://www.ondraf-plandechets.be/nieuw/downloads/pdf/5249-506-073-05%20SEA%20Plan%20D%C3%A9chets.pdf. Accessed 14 August 2015.

  • Oughton, D., et al. (2004). An ethical dimension to sustainable restoration and long-term management of contaminated areas. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 74, 171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peyton, Y. (1994). Equity in theory and practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, S. (2003). Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roeser, S., et al. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of risk theory. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B., & Vincke, P. (1981). Multicriteria analysis: Survey and new directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 8(3), 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and the future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2–3), 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, D., & Palmer, C. (2003). Technology assessment and the ‘ethical matrix’. Poiesis and Praxis, 1(4), 295–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K. (1993). Burying uncertainty: Risk and the case against geological disposal of waste. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K. (1994). Equity and nuclear waste disposal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 7(2), 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K. (2000). Duties to future generations, proxy consent, intra-and intergenerational equity: The case of nuclear waste. Risk Analysis, 20(6), 771–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K. (2002). Trading jobs for health: Ionizing radiation, occupational ethics, and the welfare argument. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(2), 139–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K. (2005). Mortgaging the future: Dumping ethics with nuclear waste. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(4), 518–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K. (2011). Climate change, nuclear economics, and conflicts of interest. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(1), 75–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K. (2013). Environmental injustice inherent in radiation dose standards. In Oughton, D., & Hansson, S. (Eds.), Social and ethical aspects of radiation risk management 19, Newnes.

  • Taebi, B. (2011). The morally desirable option for nuclear power production. Philosophy and Technology, 24(2), 169–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taebi, B. (2012). Intergenerational risks of nuclear energy. In S. Roeser et al. (Eds.), Handbook of risk theory (pp. 296–318). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taebi, B., & Kadak, C. (2010). Intergenerational considerations affecting the future of nuclear power: Equity as a framework for assessing fuel cycles. Risk Analysis, 30(9), 1341–1362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taebi, B., & Kloosterman, J. (2015). Design for values in nuclear technology. In J. van den Hoven et al. (Eds.), Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design (pp. 805–829). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Turcanu, C., & Perko, T. (2013). Integration of social aspects into nuclear research: The SCK· CEN public opinion Barometer. https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:44066307. Accessed 15 September 2015.

  • van de Poel, I., & Royakkers, L. (2011). Ethics, technology, and engineering: An introduction. London: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Hoven, J., et al. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, G. (2009). Beyond distribution and proximity: Exploring the multiple spatialities of environmental justice. Antipode, 41(4), 614–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werner, C. (2009). Patriotism, profits, and waste. In K. Browne & B. Milgram (Eds.), Economics and morality (pp. 143–166). Lanham: Altamira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilding, E. (2012). Framing ethical acceptability: A problem with nuclear waste in Canada. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 301–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the Organisme National des Déchets Radioactifs et desmatières Fissiles enrichies–Nationale Instelling voor Radioactief Afval en verrijkte Splijtstoffen (ONDRAF/NIRAS, Belgium) and the Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB). The authors wish to express special thanks to two anonymous reviewers who provided very thoughtful input for our reflection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre de Recherches Interdisciplinaires en Bioéthique, Service de Métrologie Nucléaire, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 50 av. F. D. Roosevelt (CP165/84), 1050, Brussels, Belgium

    Céline Kermisch

  2. Organisme National des Déchets Radioactifs et des Matières Fissiles Enrichies (ONDRAF/NIRAS), Avenue des Arts 14, 1210, Brussels, Belgium

    Christophe Depaus

Authors
  1. Céline Kermisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christophe Depaus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Céline Kermisch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kermisch, C., Depaus, C. The Strength of Ethical Matrixes as a Tool for Normative Analysis Related to Technological Choices: The Case of Geological Disposal for Radioactive Waste. Sci Eng Ethics 24, 29–48 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9882-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9882-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation