Risk and ethics in biological control

Abstract

All introduced natural enemies present a degree of risk to nontarget species. Since most biological control programs use relatively host-speciWc natural enemies, the risk to nontarget species is generally very low, particularly from biological control of weeds, which uses extensively tested and validated host-speciWcity testing procedures to predict risk. However, many of the published comments about risks of biological control are superWcial or misleading, often inappropriately lumping risk from all taxa of agents as "the risk of biological control," and ignore the potential beneWts, rather than dealing with species-by-species risk and beneWts. Particularly confounding accurate predictions is the common mixing of parameters of hazard and exposure in discussions of risk. In this paper, traditional risk analysis techniques are discussed and adapted for biological control. How people perceive risk is the key to understanding their attitude to risk. Some of the criticisms of biological control relating to inadequate post-release monitoring are valid and the ethical responsibilities of biological control scientists in this area are also discussed. Biological control scientists should address objectively the criticisms of biological control, continue to review and adjust current host-speciWcity testing procedures and make appropriate changes. This process will result in better science, ultimately delivering more focused programs, and altering the perception of risk from biological control agents by objective observers. Published by Elsevier Inc.

An analysis of historical trends in classical biological control of arthropods suggests need for a new centralized database in the USA

“…Howarth asserted that classical biological control introductions should be evaluated similarly to adventitious, invasive insects or weeds and evaluated for risk according to the same framework as transgenic organisms. Howarth and others (Coulson 1992b, Office of Technology Assessment 1993, 1995Karieva 1996;Secord and Karieva 1996;Simberloff and Stiling 1996;Ewel et al 1999;National Research Council 2002;Simberloff, Parker, and Windle 2005) have argued that the practice of biological control has much in common with the field of invasive species management. Concerns about non-target effects of biological control have slowed the regulatory review of permit issuance and appear to be contributing to the general Research and regulatory frameworks have generally shifted from targeting individual pests to the management of invasive species which disrupt ecosystems (Mack et al 2000;National Research Council 2002;Hoddle 2004;Simberloff 2005;Lodge et al 2006).…”

Environmental safety of entomopathogenic nematodes – Effects on abundance, diversity and community structure of non-target beetles in a forest ecosystem

“…Delfosse (2005) argued that risk is a relative concept used to imply uncertainty, and estimates and perceptions of risk change as knowledge improves. Therefore, based on the results of this study, when EPN are applied in a forest ecosystem to control H. abietis populations, the risk to non-target coleopteran populations must be considered negligible.…”

Fighting pathophobia: how to construct constructive public engagement with biocontrol for nature without augmenting public fears

“…The standard expert conceptualization of risk is the statistical probability of an adverse event that can be objectively quantified by risk assessment process (National Research Council, 1996), usually expressed in probabilistic terms, such as ''risk = hazard 9 exposure'' (Delfosse 2005). The approach fulfils the criteria of consistency and quantification, but few members of the public have the training to be engaged meaningfully in expert risk assessment.…”