GCRI has a new academic paper out. Deepwater Horizon and the Law of the Sea: Was the cure worse than the disease?, by Grant Wilson, has been accepted for publication in a law journal to be determined. This paper analyzes the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in relation to international law. The paper focuses on the use of the oil dispersant Corexit, suggesting that this may have been in violation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The paper also explores the possibility of global catastrophic risk from oil dispersants.
This is not the usual global catastrophic risk paper. The oil spill, though tragic, was a local/regional catastrophe, not a global one, though it did have global repercussions. While preparing the paper, Grant sought out connections to GCR, including the possibility of global catastrophe from bioengineered dispersants. After consulting with several experts, that search came out empty: it looks like bioengineered dispersants as they are currently understood could not cause global catastrophe, although they do pose potentially serious harms to the marine environment. (See Section V.D.1 of the paper for details.) So, we have a paper about a local catastrophe and a technology that could not cause global catastrophe.
It is of course good news to learn that something could not cause global catastrophe. It’s also important for GCRI to explain that some things are not GCRs. It’s easy to imagine us labeling lots of things as GCRs in order to attract more interest in our work and our cause. This situation parallels the tendency for many researchers to favor publishing positive results but not negative/null results (a form of ‘publication bias’) [1]. But our commitment is to GCR, not to attracting interest, and so we will not distort our research. I am thus proud to announce this result that bioengineered dispersants appear not to pose risk of global catastrophe.
This does leave the question of why Grant went to the trouble of writing the paper. The answer is, he had already written it, while at law school. It’s a good paper, even if not focused on GCR, so I asked Grant to explore the GCR connection and prepare it for publication. I’m glad that it’s now getting published. And Grant’s now two-for-two: his other law school paper, Minimizing global catastrophic and existential risks from emerging technologies through international law, has already been accepted for publication.
Finally, there’s the question of why the paper is listed as being published in ‘a journal TBD’. This is due to the quirks of publishing in law journals. In contrast with all other academic journals, for law journals, articles can be submitted to multiple journals at the same time. It’s like applying for a job. As acceptances roll in, the journals give the authors a deadline to accept their offer. Grant currently has several very attractive offers and is currently deciding between them. Meanwhile, we wanted to get the article online to share it with the world.
[1] See e.g. Song F et al. 2010. Dissemination and publication of research findings: An updated review of related biases. Health Technology Assessment 14(8).
