Taken to the extreme, the abstract application of the precautionary principle could, in theory, be used to justify stopping virtually any development. In practice, it's application is based far narrow than that and it is applied in the context of an analysis of scientific risk. For example, nobody is arguing that a particular new variety of electric toothbrush be banned just in case something might go wrong despite no evidence to suggest any problems. However, in the case of nanoparticles, there is a growing body of empirical, scientific evidence, backed up by recommendations from scientific bodies such as the Royal Society that there are not only risks, but demonstrable hazards associated with many nano scale particles.
In these cases, the precuationary principle basically advocates that a lack of evidence should not hinder the application of regulations or other actions to safeguard human or environmental health (this is a rough translation).
In 1990, when the International Panel on Climate Change issued their first report, the precautionary principle supported urgent action to prevent dangerous climate change. Industry (coal, oil etc) and many world governments argued against precaution, calling for more evidence before taking action. Now, after 15 years of inaction we have a very very serious problem.
In relation to nanotechnology, precautionary regulation of health and environmental risks is only one issue - and one that is relatively straighforward to think about (if not act upon). A much more difficult area is that of social and economic impacts. Given the juggernaut of technological development, it is difficult to even know how to have conversations about limiting the development of technologies that might have serious longer term social and economic impacts.
This is one area where we definitely need to develop some new models. The issue, at a basic level, is democracy.
The precautionary principle
In response to Andrew's comments.
Taken to the extreme, the abstract application of the precautionary principle could, in theory, be used to justify stopping virtually any development. In practice, it's application is based far narrow than that and it is applied in the context of an analysis of scientific risk. For example, nobody is arguing that a particular new variety of electric toothbrush be banned just in case something might go wrong despite no evidence to suggest any problems. However, in the case of nanoparticles, there is a growing body of empirical, scientific evidence, backed up by recommendations from scientific bodies such as the Royal Society that there are not only risks, but demonstrable hazards associated with many nano scale particles.
In these cases, the precuationary principle basically advocates that a lack of evidence should not hinder the application of regulations or other actions to safeguard human or environmental health (this is a rough translation).
In 1990, when the International Panel on Climate Change issued their first report, the precautionary principle supported urgent action to prevent dangerous climate change. Industry (coal, oil etc) and many world governments argued against precaution, calling for more evidence before taking action. Now, after 15 years of inaction we have a very very serious problem.
In relation to nanotechnology, precautionary regulation of health and environmental risks is only one issue - and one that is relatively straighforward to think about (if not act upon). A much more difficult area is that of social and economic impacts. Given the juggernaut of technological development, it is difficult to even know how to have conversations about limiting the development of technologies that might have serious longer term social and economic impacts.
This is one area where we definitely need to develop some new models. The issue, at a basic level, is democracy.
John H.
http://johnswheelbarrow.blogspot.com