How Not to Criticize the Precautionary Principle

Abstract

The precautionary principle has its origins in debates about environmental policy, but is increasingly invoked in bioethical contexts. John Harris and Søren Holm argue that the principle should be rejected as incoherent, irrational, and representing a fundamental threat to scientific advance and technological progress. This article argues that while there are problems with standard formulations of the principle, Harris and Holm's rejection of all its forms is mistaken. In particular, they focus on strong versions of the principle and fail to recognize that weaker forms, which may escape their criticisms, are both possible and advocated in the literature.

In Defence of Bad Science and Irrational Policies: an Alternative Account of the Precautionary Principle

“…Therefore, if we are concerned with equity, we should not treat action and inaction symmetrically. However, 6 For further discussion along similar lines, see Hughes 2006 andJohn 2007. Strangely, Sunstein suggests that the precautionary principle might incorporate an acts/omissions distinction, but simply assumes that this distinction is irrelevant to policy (Sunstein 2007).…”

Burden of Proof in Bioethics

“…Instead, it argues against demanding conclusive proof that environmental degradation will occur before adopting precautionary measures -or as Hughes puts it, it 'establish[es] not an obligation but a permission [original emphasis] to take action to counter risks in the absence of scientific certainty'. 33 The Rio Declaration therefore does not advance a BoP argument in favour of environmental regulations so much as reject BoP arguments against them. Our arguments in this article are consistent with such versions of the PP.…”

Disclosure of Individualized Research Results: A Precautionary Approach

“…The most significant objections to the precautionary principle are that 1) it is vague and poorly defined and 2) it is highly risk-aversive and denies society the benefits of science and technology (Sandin et al, 2002; Resnik, 2003; Sunnstein, 2005; Peterson, 2006; Hughes, 2006). In response to the first critique, numerous writers have attempted to develop a clearer definition of the precautionary principle (Cranor, 2001; Sandin et al, 2002; Resnik, 2003; Sandin, 2004).…”