Scientific and technological uncertainty, the precautionary principle, scenarios and risk management

Rogers, Michael D.

doi:10.1080/136698701455997

Cited by 78 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Framing the river safety problem in probabilities of flooding, number of casualties, costs and financial losses turns out to be problematic too, as there is substantial uncertainty on the structural weakness of dykes as well as on the socio-economic and psychological impact of flooding. Rogers (2001) says about the use of scenarios in risk communication 'the most common of such scenarios is the "worst case" scenario'. Consequently not the chance at failure but the scope and impact of the consequences of such failure and the social and political acceptability of these risks dominate political debates.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With respect to these adverse events or scenarios Rogers (2001) describes 'these scenarios move from a situation in which there is limited uncertainty in which there is sufficient scientific basis to establish the probabilistic relationship between hazard and harm to a situation in which the uncertainty is tending to ignorance'. Framing the river safety problem in probabilities of flooding, number of casualties, costs and financial losses turns out to be problematic too, as there is substantial uncertainty on the structural weakness of dykes as well as on the socio-economic and psychological impact of flooding.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Thinking the unthinkable – the end of the Dutch river dike system? Exploring a new safety concept for the river management

Enserink

2004

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 1100 the Dutch relied on their continuously expanding extensive dike system for keeping dry feet and dry goods. But how durable and safe is this traditional dike concept, now the sea-level is rising and rainfall patterns seem to change? Can they continue to raise their dikes in the future or should they give more room to the river? In the Dutch mind higher dikes are saver. In practice, however, higher dikes may lead to higher risks as the consequences of failure rise. What is wrong with the risk perception of the Dutch citizen? How should risks be communicated to the public, how should a public debate on safety regimes be organized? In a study project a new safety concept in which the Dutch rivers got a free flow was explored and communicated. In an effort to reframe the issue a transition path, scenarios, impact studies and ex ante evaluations of this new safety management regime were made. A new safety paradigm seems to be taking shape. Context scenarios show under what circumstances frequent flooding can be made acceptable to the Dutch citizen and the inhabitants of the Dutch polders.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thinking the unthinkable – the end of the Dutch river dike system? Exploring a new safety concept for the river management

Enserink

2004

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Government sometimes gives credence to this myth, hiding behind claims of scienti c knowledge to justify policy decisions (Wagner, 1995). Not only is such belief in the certainty of facts underlying regulatory decisions erroneous, but the failure to recognize the underlying uncertainty is also dangerous: it invites demands for simple choices and assured protections that cannot be satis ed (Rogers, 2001). The public's subsequent realization that the facts are disputed and the protections are imperfect can give rise to public cynicism about government.…”

Section: Risk Uncertainty and Precautionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe

Wiener

Rogers²

2002

Journal of Risk Research

Self Cite

244

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The regulation of health and environmental risks has generated transatlantic controversy concerning precaution and the precautionary principle (PP). Conventional wisdom sees the European Union endorsing the PP and proactively regulating uncertain risks, while the United States opposes the PP and waits for evidence of harm before regulating. Without favouring either approach, this paper critically analyses the conventional depiction of transatlantic divergence. First, it reviews several different versions of the PP and their different implications. Second, it broadens the transatlantic comparison of precaution beyond the typical focus on single-risk examples, such as genetically modied foods. Through case studies, including hormones in beef and milk production and mad cow disease in beef and in blood donations, as well as reference to a wider array of risks, the paper demonstrates that relative precaution varies enormously. Sometimes the EU is more precautionary than the US (such as regarding hormones in beef), while sometimes the US is more precautionary than the EU (such as regarding mad cow disease in blood). Thus, neither the EU nor the US can claim to be categorically 'more precautionary' than the other. The real pattern is complex and risk-speci c. Third, the paper seeks explanations for this complex pattern in ve sets of hypotheses: optimal tailoring on the merits, political systems, risk perceptions, trade protectionism, and legal systems. None of these hypotheses fully explains the observed complex pattern of relative transatlantic precaution. The paper concludes that differences in relative precaution depend more on the context of the particular risk than on broad differences in national regulatory regimes.

show abstract

“…The principle has been related to the legal concept "duty of care" [7], which implies that one can be liable for damages if one fails to exercise care in relation to other people or their properties. Care is thus a central issue in the precautionary perspective.…”

Section: The Precautionary Principlementioning

confidence: 99%

The Precautionary Principle in a World of Digital Dependencies

Pieters

Cleeff

2009

Computer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the Jericho forum, security in information technology can no longer be achieved by building a digital fence around the organisation. We investigate the consequences of this "de-perimeterisation" for software engineering ethics. "Being in control" is no longer feasible for certain types of risk, and therefore software engineering ethics cannot only be based on foreseeable consequences. Instead, ethics could be based on the precautionary principle, which states that lack of certainty shall not be used to postpone costeffective measures. We translate this principle from the domain of safety to the domain of security, in which we are interested in precaution with respect to people's actions rather than natural disasters. Following the example of Napster as well as recent results in philosophy of technology, we present a guideline for ethical software development, focused on inviting desirable use.

show abstract

Scientific and technological uncertainty, the precautionary principle, scenarios and risk management

Cited by 78 publications

References 3 publications

Thinking the unthinkable – the end of the Dutch river dike system? Exploring a new safety concept for the river management

Thinking the unthinkable – the end of the Dutch river dike system? Exploring a new safety concept for the river management

Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe

The Precautionary Principle in a World of Digital Dependencies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About