Precautionary principle
Please post your comments and suggestions for this article.
Comment by Robert Adams on August 21st, 2013 at 9:52 am
My suggestion is that a reference to (and perhaps comment on) the 2005 UNESCO formulation of the Precautionary Principle should be added to the NWE article on the “Precautionary principleâ€.
The source I have in mind is: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2005. “The Precautionary Principle: World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technologyâ€. (This source & version of the PP is widely available as an on-line download in pdf format through: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001395/139578e.pdf)
The “working definition†of the PP proposed in the 2005 UNESCO Report reads (in short-form) as follows:
“When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm†(italics added: each of the italicized terms receives further elaboration in the slightly longer-form of the UNESCO formulation; see p.14, Box 2).
This source should, at least I think, be included in the list of References in the article. But I would further suggest that the 2005 UNESCO formulation is also of sufficient potential significance and merit to rate inclusion and comment in section 1.2 of the article dealing with “Diverse formulations of the precautionary principleâ€.
Perhaps I should elaborate somewhat: My chief case for inclusion of the UNESCO formulation in section 1.2 hinges on three main points:
(A) Of all the formulations mentioned in the current NWE article (as at August 2013), the 2005 UNESCO version is the most recent to have received some form of formal international sanction (through a UNESCO panel of experts, although not yet endorsed, as far as I am aware, by any elected governmental body);
(B) Further, and more significantly, the 2005 UNESCO version is a compromise formulation, expressly constructed by an international panel with an eye to addressing a number of the most important criticisms and weaknesses identified by critics of earlier versions; it falls somewhat between, for example, the 1992 Rio Declaration and the 2000 European Commission formulation;
(C) Finally, and admittedly more subjectively, my personal assessment is that (although it will certainly not satisfy all sides in the current debate over the meaning and application of the PP) the 2005 UNESCO version is an intellectually worthy and potentially significant challenger to previous formulations in this ongoing international debate.
Clearly a detailed elaboration of (C) could easily become the subject of a small article in itself; however I will conclude with three further points:
C.1 the UNESCO version of the PP is somewhat broader and more general than other versions in several respects, in part because it is explicitly formulated as being an ethical principle that should guide professional conduct, as well as a potential legal principle (which, in my view, strengthens its credibility and appeal, as well as widening its potential applicability);
C.2 more controversially, the UNESCO formulation provides a slightly different twist and perspective on the difficult issue of “onus†or “burden of proof†(in part because of C.1);
C.3 finally, somewhat like the Wingspread Statement, the UNESCO formulation adopts a more teleological rather than deontological approach, by inviting consideration of a range of possible actions, including those mitigation actions that would “diminish†harm as well as those that would “avoid†harm, the explicit requirement being that the actions chosen should be “proportional to the seriousness of the potential harmâ€, based on balancing the “positive and the negative consequences†of various options, ranging from “action†to “inaction†and including possible delayed action (e.g. to allow for the development of better technical systems for monitoring or “early warningsâ€; p.41); this explicit emphasis on “proportionality†differentiates the UNESCO approach from a number of other versions of the precautionary principle.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Adams
British Columbia, Canada
Leave a Reply
Precautionary principle
Please post your comments and suggestions for this article.
Leave a Reply
