In defense of the precautionary principle

Raffensperger, Carolyn; Barrett, Katherine

doi:10.1038/nbt0901-811b

Cited by 21 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It also became part of modern definitions of the precautionary principle (Raffensperger & Barrett, 2001). Within the policy formulation phase of the new chemicals policy, this new approach can be clearly observed.…”

Section: Participatory Governancementioning

confidence: 97%

EU environmental policy under pressure: Chemicals policy change between antagonistic goals?

Pesendorfer

2006

Environmental Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Until now, chemicals policy was unable to find a method to establish a sound balance between the benefits and risks of chemical substances. Policy learning within the European Union (EU) resulted in the formulation of an alternative approach to future chemicals policy in some quarters. The Commission's proposal for new chemicals legislation -presented as 'paradigmatic' policy change -led to a highly controversial lobbying debate. This paper deals in particular with the influence of structures, policy networks, multi-level governance and the influence of new modes of governance on chemicals policy-making. It argues that future policy will not represent the paradigmatic change announced by the Commission but only one incremental, cost-effective step towards such a reform. The final proposal is criticised as a neo-liberal interpretation of the Lisbon strategy which includes a dangerous shift in environmental policy making.

show abstract

Section: Participatory Governancementioning

confidence: 97%

EU environmental policy under pressure: Chemicals policy change between antagonistic goals?

Pesendorfer

2006

Environmental Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They also claim that the precautionary principle has undermined the scientific process, can be used to mask economic protectionism, has stifled the advancement of science and technology, and lacks sufficient content to be an effective modality of risk management (Beckerman, 2000; Foster et al , 2000; Miller & Conko, 2000; Wildavsky, 2000). Supporters of the principle have argued strongly about the potential benefits of applying precaution to protect society from potentially catastrophic risks (Kriebel & Tickner, 2001; Raffensperger & Barrett, 2001). Demonstrating the dilemma policymakers face in deciding whether to utilize the principle, powerful arguments have been provided for examples of where both the application or lack of application of precaution have contributed to harm (Attaran & Maharaj, 2000; Goldstein, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of the Precautionary Principle by Senior Policy Officials: Results of a Canadian Survey

Wilson

Leonard²,

Wright³

et al. 2006

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though use of the controversial precautionary principle in risk management has increasingly been recommended as a guide for the construction of public policy in Canada and elsewhere, there are few data available characterizing its use in risk management by senior public policymakers. Using established survey methodology we sought to investigate the perceptions and terms of application of the precautionary principle in this important subset of individuals. A total of 240 surveys were sent out to seven departments or agencies in the Canadian government. The overall survey response rate was 26.6%, and our findings need to be interpreted in the context of possible responder bias. Of respondents, the overwhelming majority perceived the precautionary principle and the management of risk as complementary, and endorsed a role for the precautionary principle as a general guideline for all risk management decisions. However, 25% of respondents responded that the lack of clarity of the definition of the principle was a limitation to its effective use. The majority of respondents viewed their own level of understanding of the precautionary principle as moderate. Risk managers appeared to favor an interpretation of the precautionary principle that was based on the seriousness and irreversibility of the threat of damage, and did not endorse as strongly the need for cost effectiveness in the measures taken as a precaution against such threats. In contrast with its perceived role as a general guideline, the application of the precautionary principle by respondents was highly variable, with >60% of respondents reporting using the precautionary principle in one-quarter or less of all risk management decisions. Several factors influenced whether the precautionary principle was applied with the perceived seriousness of the threat being considered the most influential factor. The overwhelming majority of risk managers felt that "preponderance of evidence" was the level of evidence required for precautionary action to be instituted against a serious negative event. Overall, the majority of respondents viewed the precautionary principle as having a significant and positive impact on risk management decisions. Importantly, respondents endorsed a net result of more good than harm to society when the precautionary principle was applied to the management of risk.

show abstract

“…Em particular, há certamente questões sobre ideais morais e epistêmicos que o PP, por si só, não é capaz de resolver. Assim, ao contrário do que certos defensores do PP, como Raffensperge & Barrett (2001), por exemplo, parecem sugerir-segundo as quais precaution (…) is a widely recognized and adopted foundation for making wise decisions under uncertain conditions; (…) [so,] the precautionary principle is necessary and justifiable because, simply stated, our ability to predict, calculate, and control the impacts of technologies (…) is limited-27 os princípios morais e epistêmicos do PP não são puramente formais, triviais e livres de controvérsia, que deveriam ser aceitos e adotados tanto do ponto de vista moral quanto do ponto de vista da racionalidade epistêmica por todos os agentes esclarecidos (ou idealmente situados) sobre a temática em questão. Ao contrário,o PP 27 In defense of the precautionary principle, Raffensperge & Barrett (2001: 811).…”

Section: Problemas Para O Ppunclassified

Risco, Racionalidade e os limites da Precaução/Risk, rationality, and the limits of precaution

Ribeiro¹

2013

PNS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

O princípio da precaução (PP) vem sendo frequentemente invocado em discussões sobre os usos a serem feitos dos resultados de vários dos avanços tecnológicos recentes. Como tal, o PP se oferece como um princípio absoluto para decisões reguladoras de práticas que se apropriam de tais avanços tecnológicos. Porém, um dos problemas centrais do PP está em sua falta de clareza conceitual. O propósito central deste artigo é contribuir para tal esclarecimento. Diante disto, discutiremos o PP a partir de dois pontos de vista: um referente à racionalidade epistêmica; o outro referente à moralidade. Argumentaremos que compromissos relacionados a estes pontos de vista compõem o PP e, contrariamente à expressiva tendência na literatura contemporânea de interpretar o PP como obedecendo a uma lógica consequencialista de ações, tentaremos mostrar que o PP é um princípio que expressa um ideal deontológico. Por fim, consideraremos alguns problemas relacionados ao PP. Mais especificamente, argumentaremos que o PP incorpora ideais substantivos epistêmicos e morais, contrariamente à tendência disseminada entre defensores do mesmo, que sugerem que o PP é um princípio formal e trivial para invidíduos racionais e morais.Abstract: In recent discussions about the uses to be made of the latest scientific and technological results there have often been appeals to the Precautionary Principle (PP). As such, the PP has been taken up as an absolute principle for regulatory decisions regarding practices that make use of the scientific and technological developments. However, one serious problem with the PP is its lack of conceptual clarity. The main aim of this paper is to contribute to such a clarification. Thus, we shall approach the PP from two standpoints: one related to epistemic rationality; the other related to morality. We shall argue that commitments stemming from these two standpoints are constitutive of the PP and, contrary to the current trend in the contemporary literature on the topic—of interpreting the PP as a principle which carries a consequentialist logic of assessment of actions—, we will try to show that the PP is a principle which expresses a deontological ideal. In the last part of the paper, we will address some problems that might affect the PP. More specifically, we shall argue that the PP embodies substantive epistemic and moral ideals, and that this lies in direct opposition to a widespread tendency among defenders of the PP of seeing it as a formal and trivial principle for rational and moral individuals. Keywords: Risk, rationality, precaution

show abstract

In defense of the precautionary principle

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

EU environmental policy under pressure: Chemicals policy change between antagonistic goals?

EU environmental policy under pressure: Chemicals policy change between antagonistic goals?

Application of the Precautionary Principle by Senior Policy Officials: Results of a Canadian Survey

Risco, Racionalidade e os limites da Precaução/Risk, rationality, and the limits of precaution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About