3 ms·

It's not a nitpick, it's just wrong. Bad things happening is a cost which is both negative and external. The use of the term "negative externality" works here.

• missedthecue 5y ago
  Negative externality is an economic term which describes a specific market failure. A research lab leak (or nuclear meltdown, or whatever) is a rare accident, not a negative externality. It would be like me saying the theory of relativity just means a theory about how everything is relative. That's obviously wrong. You can't just break down academic terms into their separate words. It doesn't make sense.
  • jjk166 5y ago
    Third parties suffering a disease is the negative externality. There's no difference between a steel mill leaking sulphur in the course of producing steel and a biotech company releasing prions in the course of producing medicines. Radiation leaks in the course of producing electricity are likewise externalities.
    • missedthecue 5y ago
      Yes, there is a main difference which changes the entire definition. Sulfur emissions are a core part of steel production. You cannot manufacture steel without using carbon in the reduction process. It is inherent. However, you CAN research diseases without having accidental lab leaks. Thousands of labs around the world do this perfectly fine year in, year out. That's the way it's normally done. The process of researching diseases does not inherently impose costs on anyone else.
      • jjk166 5y ago
        No, sulfur release is not a core part of steel production, and indeed sulphur emmision has been drastically reduced since regulations made steel producers bear the cost of sulphur emmissions, removing it as an externality. Labs don't continuously spew out diseases, but they very much must impose the risk of such releases upon others. That is the cost. It costs money to insure against risk, even if the disaster never comes to pass. If a biotech company reduces its costs by implementing looser safety policies thus increasing risk to the surrounding population, that cost is borne externally. Hence the name.
  • AbrahamParangi 5y ago
    What I am arguing is that low-probability events can be treated as effectively certain over large enough sample sizes. Similarly, dangerous jobs impose a societal health burden via workplace accidents. Each accident is one-off but in aggregate, a non-zero accident rate is a certain outcome. Containment breaches of contagious diseases, while each a one-off event, are effectively certain over large enough sample sizes- and therefore should be considered as part of the cost of doing research into them.