Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Ethics of Biosurveillance

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Governments must keep agricultural systems free of pests that threaten agricultural production and international trade. Biosecurity surveillance already makes use of a wide range of technologies, such as insect traps and lures, geographic information systems, and diagnostic biochemical tests. The rise of cheap and usable surveillance technologies such as remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) presents value conflicts not addressed in international biosurveillance guidelines. The costs of keeping agriculture pest-free include privacy violations and reduced autonomy for farmers. We argue that physical and digital privacy in the age of ubiquitous aerial and ground surveillance is a natural right to allow people to function freely on their land. Surveillance methods must be co-created and justified through using ethically defensible processes such as discourse theory, value-centred design and responsible innovation to forge a cooperative social contract between diverse stakeholders. We propose an ethical framework for biosurveillance activities that balances the collective benefits for food security with individual privacy: (1) establish the boundaries of a biosurveillance social contract; (2) justify surveillance operations for the farmers, researchers, industry, the public and regulators; (3) give decision makers a reasonable measure of control over their personal and agricultural data; and (4) choose surveillance methodologies that give the appropriate information. The benefits of incorporating an ethical framework for responsible biosurveillance innovation include increased participation and accumulated trust over time. Long term trust and cooperation will support food security, producing higher quality data overall and mitigating against anticipated information gaps that may emerge due to disrespecting landholder rights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Technologies such as drone-mounted sprays target specific plants, and even specific parts of plants.

  2. It is in the commercial interest of data capture/analysis technology providers to collect and monetise data about many types of farming activities.

  3. Smart technologies include insect capture based on GPS or weather parameters; in-field diagnostics (for example, loop mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays); biosensors; and wireless or telemetry data transmission from the field (McIntyre 2016).

  4. Compare and contrast this approach with the UK that protects marginal agriculture with trade barriers and subsidies (Braun 2007).

  5. Such as foot and mouth disease, African swine fever, swine vesicular disease etc. Animal Health Australia, & Plant Health Australia (2013). Farm biosecurity. http://www.farmbiosecurity.com.au/. Accessed 15 April 2018.

  6. Note, biosurveillance also refers to the monitoring of the spread of human diseases but the use of the term is restricted in this paper to surveillance for threats to agricultural production.

  7. The APPD draws on the collections and databases from 18 regional databases across Australia.

  8. For a detailed review of technology providers and data considerations see Wolfert et al. (2017).

  9. See the Global Drone Regulations Database https://droneregulations.info/index.html.

  10. Might be the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, but might also be Department of Trade and/or the Department of Environment and Science.

  11. E.g. the Australian Cotton Industry’s MyBMP management certification process certifies farms for their business practices including high standards of biosecurity to make farms eligible for global sustainability programs such as the Better Cotton Initiative. See 'MyBmp: The Australian Cotton Industry’s Sustainability Standard' via https://cottonaustralia.com.au/cotton-library/publications/brochures.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Angela Daly and Tony Clarke and anonymous reviewers for comments that significantly improved the manuscript. PB and GH acknowledge support of the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. K. Devitt.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Devitt, S.K., Baxter, P.W.J. & Hamilton, G. The Ethics of Biosurveillance. J Agric Environ Ethics 32, 709–740 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-019-09775-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-019-09775-2

Keywords

Navigation