 What are the ethical challenges raised by being able to measure everything? A couple of weeks ago, risk-bites tackled the knotty issue of the measurement conundrum. This occurs when new technologies allow us to measure incredibly small quantities of chemicals in the stuff we eat, drink, breathe and slather on our bodies. The trouble is, once you know something, you can't just unknow it. The result is an action challenge. What do you do when the available knowledge on something changes? But there's also an associated ethical challenge. What is considered right and appropriate when new information emerges? Imagine, for instance, that a hypothetical substance, called Greensave, allows soft drinks bottles to be produced that use less plastic and are cheaper to make than the alternatives. The result is higher profits and a smaller environmental footprint, a win-win situation. But what about the health risks of Greensave? Imagine, early testing shows no presence of Greensave in the drinks stored in the bottles. But a new measurement technology comes along that indicates minute quantities of Greensave in the drinks. Risk assessment shows that if you were to drink 10 Greensave bottles of pop per day for your entire life, your risk of getting cancer would be 1 in 10 million. In other words, the use of Greensave in soft drinks bottles is pretty safe. Technically, all is good in the world. Ethically, though, the new measurement technology has just made the world a more complex place. For instance, do you, as a consumer of soft drinks, have a right to know how much Greensave you are exposed to? And what information is a company that's using Greensave obliged to disclose? And how should it disclose it? As a consumer, you have a choice whether to use Greensave containing bottles or not, as long as you know which these are. But what if the bottle-making factory was releasing minute quantities of Greensave into the environment? Imagine that the new measurement technology now reveals that there is Greensave in your tap water. Previously, there was no indication that it was there. And risk management shows that if you were to drink this same water for your whole life, you would have a 1 in 10 million chance of developing cancer. The risk is negligible. But does this justify the exposure being imposed on you? Is someone obliged to tell you what you are being exposed to? And who decides what is acceptable and appropriate when it comes to contaminating a resource that you depend on? These are ethical questions. They arise from what society considers to be acceptable rules of behavior. And they come about because something can now be measured that could not be measured before. In this respect, being able to measure incredibly small quantities of substances is a two-edged sword. It enables a better understanding of the world we live in and how it impacts on our health. But it also demands complex ethical decisions that simply didn't exist before the new information was available. And these ethical decisions have the power to change people's lives for the better or worse, even though the actual risk associated with the substance being measured may not have changed. And that is a whole ethical challenge in itself. Don't forget to subscribe to RiskBytes for more insights into the science of risk and stay safe.