Environmental scientists are trained to collect data, run models, and test hypotheses. What they are not routinely trained to do, argues a new PNAS Opinion article, is recognize when their science rests on value judgments, and how to navigate the ethical dimensions of the decisions they inform.
The piece, “Why environmental scientists need ethics training more than ever before,” was published July 1 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2525403123). It calls for integrating formal ethics curricula into environmental science education, modeled after recent efforts in computer science.
The Value-Laden Decisions Environmental Scientists Face
The authors argue that ethical questions are not peripheral to environmental science but central to it. “Even fundamental questions, such as what constitutes a ‘healthy’ ecosystem and how to measure it, are, at their core, decisions about what stakeholders value,” they write, citing the work of philosophers Rohwer and Marris.
Among the specific decisions they highlight:
Conservation triage. When resources are limited, which species or ecosystems get priority? The choices involve not just ecological data but judgments about the relative value of different forms of life, the rights of future generations, and the weight of cultural significance.
Geoengineering ethics. Emerging technologies for planetary-scale climate intervention raise questions about who has the authority to make decisions with global consequences. Acceptable risk at planetary scales is a fundamentally different category from risk in laboratory or local contexts.
De-extinction technologies. Reviving extinct species is entangled with questions about the manipulation of natural processes, obligations to extinct species, and the allocation of scarce conservation resources.
Indigenous knowledge integration. The piece emphasizes the importance of braiding Indigenous knowledge systems with Western scientific approaches, citing examples such as cultural burning practices and the legal recognition of the Whanganui River as a legal person with Rights of Nature.
Redefining conservation dogmas. The authors draw on their own earlier work challenging long-held conservation assumptions, including the debate over whether to let the northern white rhino go extinct or intervene with advanced reproductive technologies.
A Model From Computer Science
The article points to recent successes in computer science, where embedded ethics modules have become a standard component of curricula at many universities. Programs such as those described by Horton and colleagues (2022, 2024) integrate ethicists directly into computer science courses, ensuring students encounter ethical frameworks alongside technical training.
“We need the same for environmental science,” Ferraro told 1ban.news. “Environmental scientists make decisions every day that affect ecosystems, communities, and future generations. They should have the tools to recognize when those decisions involve ethical trade-offs and how to think through them rigorously.”
Article Type and Scope
The piece is categorized as a PNAS Opinion, a “Front Matter essay” format that presents novel ideas or proposals and is reviewed by at least one NAS member or expert before publication. It is not an editorial (which receives no peer review) nor a full research article (which undergoes external review by two or more independent referees). Like all PNAS Opinion pieces, it carries the standard disclaimer that findings and conclusions are those of the authors and have not been endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences.
The article draws on an interdisciplinary workshop, “New Thinking in Conservation,” organized by Dale Jaimeson, and includes perspectives from ecology, philosophy, Indigenous studies, and computer science ethics.
Broader Context
The proposal comes at a time when environmental science is increasingly political. Conservation decisions affect land use, resource extraction, carbon markets, and international development. Climate policy recommendations involve implicit judgments about discount rates, intergenerational equity, and acceptable risk. Ferraro and Thresher argue that without formal ethics training, environmental scientists may either fail to recognize these dimensions or address them naively.
The article does not prescribe a specific curriculum but lays out the case that the status quo, in which ethics training is optional, informal, or absent, is no longer adequate.
Source: Ferraro, K.M. & Thresher, A.C. “Why environmental scientists need ethics training more than ever before.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 123(27) (2026). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2525403123