 Here, we will begin to identify potential ethical issues in the language of science from this article titled, Impact of Shale Gas Development on Regional Water Quality, which first appeared in the May 16, 2013 issue of The Journal of Science. In this article, we will be looking for potential ethical issues that could arise from the scientific study of the impact of shale gas on regional water quality. We will look specifically at the language used in the article to help us locate issues worth further ethical consideration. Later on, we will use the ethical dimensions of scientific research approach to help us think about where else to look. There's potential for significant ethical issues because the article really deals with two issues of immediate importance to contemporary societies, namely the development of their energy sector and water quality. The first sentence here of the background section really indicates to us that natural gas is of significant importance to regions around the world because of its ability both to be a relatively clean energy source and as a way to help reduce their reliance on energy imports. As such, we are immediately told that this issue we are about to look at has significant political and environmental importance and it is often linked to a variety of ethical considerations mainly for these reasons. So as a transition fuel, methane is also important because it helps us reduce emissions of CO2 from the heavier fossil fuels such as coal, fuel oil, oil, etc. It helps us reduce the emissions of significant criteria pollutants including nitrous oxides, ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter counts, and lead. And it also helps us reduce mercury which is specifically put out from coal burning. So hydraulic fracturing as a way of extracting difficult to reach methane sources has really the further appeal of now being economically feasible. The process of hydraulic fracturing though is really a high pressure process intended to crack rock about one kilometer below the surface. And as such, this powerful process presents environmental risks to underground discharge of the wastewater initially used as hydraulic fracturing fluid. As well as the accidental spills in terms of the wastewater management and what goes really unsaid here though is in stating these environmental risks, what are these risks and how do these risks also pose problems to people exposed to such contaminants. The understanding here though is that environmental risks are almost always linked also to human risks, human health risks, and livelihoods as well as risks to other modes and forms of well-being. As it is stated in the advances paragraph, the most common problem is with faulty seals around the well casing to prevent leakage of methane. However, the incidence rates of faulty seals is in the range of only about 1 to 3 percent. Nevertheless, methane has been detected in these areas around well drilling, but there is a significant controversy and whenever we see terms like significant controversy, we're bound to find some ethical contention as to whether or not the methane that was detected was actually due to the drilling or if it was due to other natural processes. Without data as to what the conditions were before drilling, what they refer to here as a pre-drilling baseline or that is normal conditions, it is really difficult to determine the current condition from what are considered to be normal conditions as methane has been known to enter into the water table naturally in some of these areas even before the drilling occurred. As we will see in this article, methods of measuring methane isotopes were actually developed to help us answer some of these questions. Wastewater management of the used hydraulic fracturing fluids is going to dominate environmental debate both now and in the near future because wastewater contains both significant chemical additives for the fracturing process as well as vast quantities of heavy metals and radioactive contaminants that were brought up to the surface from deep underground. As wastewater can only be reviewed so many times and as the gas wells and fields begin to mature, there will be growing pressure on finding better strategies for managing the wastewater. So this isn't a problem that's going to go away, in fact it's a problem that will likely intensify. So looking more specifically at the contaminants found in fracturing fluid, the urgency and risks associated with wastewater management become readily apparent. According to the article, wastewater management can be made more effective through improving the significant areas of research, that is better modeling of what happens to the contaminants, better models of understanding how it flows through underground passageways, increased long-term monitoring of the wells and the dissemination of data which includes improving transparency in fracturing fluid contents. So the paper identifies three significant impediments, however, to peer-reviewed research into the environmental impacts of well drilling. As they currently are, first it's the confidentiality requirements that are really dictated by legal investigations and by trade secret laws and as to what is really legal in terms of what these companies have to reveal. Second is the expedited rate of development, which is making it difficult to conduct studies within a reasonable timeframe and the limited funds available for research into the impacts of horizontal well drilling for shale gas are also very limited as it says here, but also without funds there's no way to really go out and test this. So this becomes a problem because the burden of proof of harm is really being done throughout this process by a wide range of stakeholders that are local to drilling sites. As opposed to the burden of having to prove that no harm is being done, which would perhaps necessarily be put on the drilling in the energy companies. So as we can see there's perhaps possible problems that could arise that even remind us of Pennsylvania's adverse environmental legacy from the abandoned coal mines and what we want to begin to do is avoid that perhaps long-term legacy and problems that we are still dealing with and try to get ahead of them. So overall while the article does not identify specific ethical issues, potential ethical issues are represented and presented to us through a lot of the terminology of uncertainty, risk, controversy, pollution, environmental responsibility, long-term issues which think about responsibility towards not just 10 years down the line but very much future stakeholders including generations that might not have been born yet. So when we begin to actually contextualize this in the language and the conceptions of ethics, we can begin to see that this is actually a rather loaded article. As we can see we've highlighted a good deal of the terminology in the review summary here. So as we go through this article I want you to pay very close attention to the kind of scientific arguments that are being made, the kind of terminology and the parameters of uncertainty, how risks are being defined, and how terms even such as appropriate what is appropriate to the situation at their appearance seem obvious but when we begin to push a bit further what the terminology appropriate means might not be so obvious.