The precautionary principle and democratizing expertise: a US perspective

Abstract

Democratizing expertise carries many implications for application of the precautionary principle. It can extend the amount and types of information incorporated into decisions, empower citizens, and ensure that experts alone are not charged with making value-laden decisions. It can also expose uncertainties in science and decision-making, and bring forth unrecognized alternative solutions to problems. In this article, we outline the implications of democratizing expertise on implementation of the precautionary principle in a US context, as well as barriers and opportunities. We argue that initiatives to democratize expertise and implement precaution in the United States will occur first at the local and regional level as a result of grassroots momentum for change.

Whose knowledge? What values? The comparative politics of patenting life forms in the United States and Europe

“…Many scholars have observed that trust in both scientific and science policy institutions has declined more rapidly in Europe than in the United States and that Europe has experienced greater mobilization against the science and technology policy establishment (Jasanoff 2007;Levidow et al 2005). Furthermore, over the past 30 years, the US and Europe have adopted rather different logics for regulating emerging technologies including genetically modified organisms (Tickner and Wright 2003;Vogel 2004). Not only have European policymakers embraced the ''precautionary principle'' (placing the burden on the producers to prove that a technology is safe), but they have also begun to consider social and ecological knowledge alongside more traditional forms of quantitative scientific knowledge when trying to resolve environmental policy issues.…”

Towards Innovation Democracy? Participation, Responsibility and Precaution in Innovation Governance.

“…These 'Cinderella methods' can be neglected, where there persist preoccupations solely with deterministic notions of 'risk', 'exposure' and 'vulnerability' (rather than 'uncertainty', 'ambiguity' and 'ignorance'), and a consequent sense that risk assessment alone is sufficient (Stirling 2001a). Practical examples include a range of different tools for 'opening up' regulatory appraisal (Petersen et al 2011), research strategies (Ely et al 2013) and innovation policy (Stirling 2012), as well as more general prioritising of qualities like reversibility (Dovers 1995), resilience (Dovers and Handmer 2013) and flexibility (Tickner and Wright 2003).…”

Principio de precaución y medio ambiente

“…El principio de precaución constituiría una pieza importante a la hora de proporcionar a la sociedad civil una vía para exigir responsabilidades a los gobiernos y a las industrias por sus acciones, dejar oír su voz en las cuestiones que les atañen y «democratizar el conocimiento experto». Planteando la cuestión en los términos más amplios, se trata de mejorar las políticas públicas tanto desde el punto de vista de la efectividad y la eficiencia como, repetimos, de su nivel de calidad democrática 24,25 . La regulación de las sustancias químicas 26 o de los organismos modificados genéticamen-te 27 son asuntos que se citan frecuentemente en este contexto, y este planteamiento habría de aplicarse sin más demoras a las nanotecnologías 28 .…”