Submitted by Andrew Duguid (not verified) on May 8, 2006 - 10:58.
Although in practical terms regulation of technical and economic activity is far laxer than it should be or needs to be, I am left with the feeling that the precautionary principle is a vehicle that we can never win with. I can't remember the strict statement of the principle but my belief is that applied rigourously it gives grounds for stopping almost anything. It isn't, as pointed out above, possible to predict consequences in their entirety. Thus the precautionary principle would lead to a society that would be far more conservative that most people would accept. This includes me. Many of the progressive changes that I support could be easily defeated on the basis of the principle.
I would suggest that a different basis of regulation (perhaps utopia) that would actually fit progressive politics better would be one of priority and risk. The blurb about nanotechnology is that it will no doubt solve poverty, environmental degredation and dandruff. So there is public agreement on what the outstanding priority problems are. The question we should ask is then, is this the most effective, simplest and least apparently risky way of solving these problems, among the other possible solutions? If it was the only way apparent to stop the earth crashing into the sun or something similar, we might conclude that the risks and uncertainties are worthwhile. Given that we have available many other more conservative and productive courses of action available to us it is unclear why we would invest resources in nano research at all - let alone have to consider the question of regulation.
The Precautionary Principle
Although in practical terms regulation of technical and economic activity is far laxer than it should be or needs to be, I am left with the feeling that the precautionary principle is a vehicle that we can never win with. I can't remember the strict statement of the principle but my belief is that applied rigourously it gives grounds for stopping almost anything. It isn't, as pointed out above, possible to predict consequences in their entirety. Thus the precautionary principle would lead to a society that would be far more conservative that most people would accept. This includes me. Many of the progressive changes that I support could be easily defeated on the basis of the principle.
I would suggest that a different basis of regulation (perhaps utopia) that would actually fit progressive politics better would be one of priority and risk. The blurb about nanotechnology is that it will no doubt solve poverty, environmental degredation and dandruff. So there is public agreement on what the outstanding priority problems are. The question we should ask is then, is this the most effective, simplest and least apparently risky way of solving these problems, among the other possible solutions? If it was the only way apparent to stop the earth crashing into the sun or something similar, we might conclude that the risks and uncertainties are worthwhile. Given that we have available many other more conservative and productive courses of action available to us it is unclear why we would invest resources in nano research at all - let alone have to consider the question of regulation.