Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41524919›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2026

Convergences and Gaps between Environmental Ethics, Climate Ethics, and Research Ethics: A Scoping Review.

Michel Bourban, Dominic Lenzi, Mads P Sørensen, Rachel Fishberg, Jan Mehlich, Fabian Fischbach, José Luis Molina, Kasandra I H M Poague, Alexandra Csábi, Rose Heffernan and 2 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Michel BourbanPhilosophy Section, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. m.bourban@utwente.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8391-8962
Dominic LenziPhilosophy Section, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4388-4427
Mads P SørensenThe Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2455-2515
Rachel FishbergThe Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4386-2933
Jan MehlichCenter for Life Ethics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9809-3975
Fabian FischbachGerman Reference Centre for Ethics in the Life Sciences, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-5530-1536
José Luis MolinaDepartment of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2932-2690
Kasandra I H M PoagueLISA (ICT, library and archiving services), University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5430-3141
Alexandra CsábiCenter for Innovation Systems and Policy, Austrian Institute of Technology, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9244-3436
Rose HeffernanWomen Engage for a Common Future, Munich, Germany.
Rosie HastingsDepartment of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3240-4478
Anaïs RességuierTrilateral Research Ltd, Waterford, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0461-0506

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Technological innovation is a double-edged sword for the environment. While it can significantly reduce environmental and societal risks of harm, technological progress is often a major contributor to environmental degradation. This suggests the need for an anticipatory approach to research oversight which can mitigate the harmful and contradictory effects of research and innovation. In this article, we conduct a scoping review to identify cross-cutting concepts between environmental ethics, environmental justice, climate ethics, climate justice, and research ethics and integrity, focusing on literature on research and technological innovation. This article identifies an important gap between research ethics and these other topic areas. It also demonstrates the importance of updating existing research ethics frameworks to incorporate environmental concerns evident in environmental ethics and climate justice. Finally, it reveals an over-representation of studies focused upon climate change at the expense of other environmental issues, and of research on the ethics and governance of geoengineering, which we suggest is not a generalisable model for governance of research.

Indexed as

ClimateClimate ChangeEnvironmentEnvironmental JusticeEthics, ResearchTechnologyHumansSocial JusticeClimate justiceEnvironmental ethicsEnvironmental justiceInnovationResearch ethicsTechnology

Identifiers

PMID41524919
PMCPMC12835071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.