Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Precautionary Principle

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Precautionary Reasoning in Environmental and Public Health Policy

Part of the book series: The International Library of Bioethics ((ILB,volume 86))

  • 203 Accesses

Abstract

In the previous two chapters, I considered approaches to precautionary reasoning stemming from decision theory and moral theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Private corporations also use the risk management approach for making decisions related to legal and financial risks.

  2. 2.

    For more on the claim that values are not reducible to scientific facts, see the critique of the natural law approach to moral theory in Chap. 3. For further discussion of the relationship between values and science, see Lenman (2018) and Ridge (2019).

  3. 3.

    While the evidence for human-caused climate change is no longer inconclusive, many questions remain. For a discussion of the relationship between the PP and climate change issues see McKinnon (2009), Steel (2015), Hartzell-Nichols (2017).

  4. 4.

    ‘Toxic substances’ excludes pesticides, which are regulated by the EPA under different laws, and drugs, biologics, cosmetics, and foods additives, which are regulated by the FDA.

  5. 5.

    Regulation is very different for drugs and pesticides, which must undergo extensive health and safety testing prior to marketing approval. These chemicals are assumed to be unsafe until proven otherwise. See discussion in Chap. 6.

  6. 6.

    For example, we can know with certainty that 1 + 1 = 2 or that the square root of 16 = 4. We can use deductive arguments to prove mathematical theorems.

  7. 7.

    The same point also applies to benefits: we should not waste time and energy pursing benefits that are merely possible. See footnote 15 below.

  8. 8.

    The European Commission (2001) definition of the PP uses the phrase “reliable scientific evidence,” which is stronger than plausibility.

  9. 9.

    Scientific communities determine the type of support required for plausibility.

  10. 10.

    The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute (2019) is a private, non-profit organization dedicated to the search for extraterrestrial, intelligent life and understanding to evolution of life and intelligence in the universe.

  11. 11.

    Scientific communities determine the type of support required for confirmation as well as the degree of confirmation.

  12. 12.

    Peterson (2006, 2007a, b) takes this charge one step further and develops a formal proof that the PP is logically inconsistent. However, to prove this result, Peterson assumes an untenable version of the PP that has not been defended by PP proponents. Peterson (2007b: 306) defines the PP as follows: “If one act is more likely to give rise to a fatal outcome than another, then the latter should be preferred to the former, given that both fatal outcomes are equally undesirable.” There are two problems with this definition of the PP. First, it does not address the reasonableness of taking risks (discussed below). Second, it includes probability concepts in the definition (i.e. “more likely”) which is not what most people have in mind when they define the PP. Peterson has constructed a proof against a straw man.

  13. 13.

    I did not pull these criteria out of thin air. These are similar to proposals found in European Commission (2000), Resnik (2001), Whiteside (2006), Shrader-Frechette (2007), Munthe (2011), and Hartzell-Nichols (2017).

  14. 14.

    I will discuss examples of such conflicts in Chap. 6 (susceptible populations) and Chap. 7 (GM crops/plants).

  15. 15.

    I put “more” and “most” in quotes here because I think that reasonableness judgments may not satisfy rational ordering rules, such as transitivity. If reasonableness judgments are transitive, then we should be able make the following inference: “if option X is judged to be more reasonable than option Y and option Y is judged to be more reasonable than option Z, then option X is judged to be more reasonable than option Z.” I am not sure that we can make this type of inference because reasonableness judgments are context-dependent. We judge that an option is more or less reasonable based on the circumstances we face, our values, and the other options. Saying that something is “reasonable” is therefore like saying that it is “desirable,” “good” or “just.” We might develop a formal theory of reasonableness that requires that reasonableness judgments conform to rational ordering rules, but real-world judgments of reasonableness, made by individuals or groups, may not always conform to the dictates of the theory.

  16. 16.

    Here I am using the term ‘plausible’ as a modifier for risks and benefits. Since most people speak of “benefits” when they really mean “plausible benefits,” I will follow that convention, keeping in mind that benefits, like risks, imply a degree of uncertainty, since we are usually not absolutely certain that they will occur.

  17. 17.

    See European Commission (2000), Resnik (2001), Whiteside (2006).

  18. 18.

    I have argued in Chaps. 2 and 3 that there are often significant problems with assigning numerical values to benefits and risks when we have conflicting, incommensurable values, such as human life vs. money.

  19. 19.

    In Chaps. 6 and 9 I will discuss human rights issues when applying the PP to drug regulation and responses to public health emergencies.

  20. 20.

    The topic of fairness or justice is beyond the scope of this book, so I will not present an in-depth account of it here. I will assume, however, that it is an important consideration that should be addressed when deciding whether precautionary measures are reasonable. For a review of theories of justice, see Miller (2017).

  21. 21.

    See, also, the discussion of fairness in Chap. 3.

  22. 22.

    The Wingspread Statement of the PP refers to using democratic procedures to apply the PP and addressing the interests of affected parties.

  23. 23.

    For more on epistemic responsibility, see Goldmand and McGrath (2014).

  24. 24.

    The idea here is similar to a legal doctrine known as stare decisis (Kozel 2010).

  25. 25.

    This type of consistency is similar to the method of reflective equilibrium discussed in Chap. 4.

  26. 26.

    I am assuming that science and technology are key factors in economic development. There are also other important factors, such as well-functioning legal and banking systems, natural resources, capital, and labor.

  27. 27.

    The relationship between science and technology is complex. Although scientific theories, concepts, and principles often lead to technological advancements, technology also progresses independently of science. Technology and science are fundamentally related, but technology is not merely applied science (Radder 2019).

  28. 28.

    For further discussion of the relationship between science, technology, and human values see Radder (2019).

  29. 29.

    As noted in Chap. 1, banning or prohibiting something is a form of risk avoidance.

  30. 30.

    I am not committed to the word ‘degree.’ One could substitute other words here that would have the same effect, such as ‘amount’ or ‘quantity.’ The degree of evidence to establish accurate and precise probabilities is determined by the relevant scientific community.

  31. 31.

    By ‘accurate’ I mean tending to be true or correct. If I correctly predict whether it will rain 90% of the time, then I am an accurate forecaster.

  32. 32.

    By ‘precise’ I mean exact or specific. Asserting that there is a 95% chance that it will rain tonight is a precise probability estimate; saying that it is likely to rain tonight is not. To apply expected utility theory to a decision, probabilities must be precise.

  33. 33.

    A decision could be a choice by an individual or a group.

  34. 34.

    The word ‘reasonable’ does not appear in either the Rio Declaration version of the PP or the Wingspread Statement. However, both of these versions of the PP make implicit reference to benefits, not just harms. The Rio declaration includes the term ‘cost-effective,’ which implies some concern about economic costs and benefits, and the Wingspread Statement says the application of the PP must be ‘democratic’ and address the concerns of ‘affected parties.’ These phrases imply that some consideration of harms and benefits must occur in the application of the PP, since affected parties are likely to be concerned about how they will be harmed or benefited by decisions.

  35. 35.

    For examples of qualitative risk assessment, see Fletcher (2005) and Han and Weng (2011). Peterson (2007b) views the PP qualitative rather than quantitative.

  36. 36.

    See Munthe (2011) for additional discussion of the relationship between the PP and moral theories.

  37. 37.

    See Brink (1989) for a defense of this type of view.

  38. 38.

    Hansen et al. (2007) argue that REACH is not precautionary enough.

  39. 39.

    I discuss some of these issues in Chap. 9.

  40. 40.

    Daniel Steel and Katie Steele should not be confused.

  41. 41.

    Autonomous vehicles have killed pedestrians. In March 2018, Uber’s self-driving car struck and killed Elaine Herzberg, who was walking her bike across the street in Tempe, Arizona. A human driver, Rafaela Vasquez was riding in the vehicle to prevent an accident if the car did not drive appropriately. The human driver did not react in time to prevent the accident. The National Transportation Safety Board determined that the vehicle’s computer system did not recognize the pedestrian, who was jaywalking (Gonzales 2019).

References

  • Ackerman, F. 2008. Poisoned for Pennies: The Economics and Toxics of Precaution. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 1985 [340 BCE]. Nichomachean Ethics (T. Irwin, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2012. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky, D. 1991. Scientific Uncertainty and the Precautionary Principle. Environment 33 (7): 43–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brink, D.O. 1989. Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brombacher, M. 1999. The Precautionary Principle Threatens to Replace Science. Pollution Engineering (Summer): 32–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm, A., and H. Clarke. 1993. Natural Resource Management and the Precautionary Principle. In Fair Principles for Sustainable Development: Essay on Environmental Policy and Developing Countries, ed. E. Dommon, 109–122. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claypool, H., A. Bin-Nun, J. Gerlach. 2017. Self-Driving Cars: The Impact on People with Disabilities. Ruderman Family Foundation White Paper. Available at https://rudermanfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Self-Driving-Cars-The-Impact-on-People-with-Disabilities_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2021.

  • Cranor, C. 2001. Learning from Law to Address Uncertainty in the Precautionary Principle. Science and Engineering Ethics 7: 313–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cranor, C. 2011. Legally Poisoned: How the Law Puts Us at Risk from Toxicants. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crichton, M. 2002. Prey. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, K.C. 2010. Geoengineering and the Precautionary Principle. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 24: 237–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, K.C. 2011. Nanomaterials and the Precautionary Principle. Environmental Health Perspectives 119 (6): A240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt, H.T., and F. Jotterand. 2004. The Precautionary Principle: A Dialectical Reconsideration. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (3): 301–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2000. Communication for the Commission on the Precautionary Principle. Available at https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/21676661-a79f-4153-b984-aeb28f07c80a/language-en. Accessed 18 Jan 2021.

  • European Commission. 2017. Science for Environment Policy: The Precautionary Principle: Decision Making Under Uncertainty, Future Brief 18. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/precautionary_principle_decision_making_under_uncertainty_FB18_en.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2021.

  • Fletcher, W.J. 2005. The Application of Qualitative Risk Assessment Methodology to Prioritize Issues for Fisheries Management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62 (8): 1576–1587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, K.F., P. Vecchia, and M.H. Repacholi. 2000. Science and the Precautionary Principle. Science 288 (5468): 979–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frischmann, M. 2018. Is Smart Technology Making Us Dumb? Scientific American, December 27, 2018. Available at https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/is-smart-technology-making-us-dumb/. Accessed 19 Jan 2021.

  • Gardiner, S. 2006. A Core Precautionary Principle. Journal of Political Philosophy 14: 33–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goklany, I.M. 2001. The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, R. 2019. Feds Say Self-Driving SUV Did Not Recognize Jaywalking Pedestrian in Fatal Crash. NPR, November 7, 2019. Available at https://www.npr.org/2019/11/07/777438412/feds-say-self-driving-uber-suv-did-not-recognize-jaywalking-pedestrian-in-fatal-. Accessed 19 Jan 2021.

  • Haack, S. 2003. Defending Science within Reason. New York, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, Z.Y., and W.G. Weng. 2011. Comparison Study on Qualitative and Quantitative Risk Assessment Methods for Urban Natural Gas Pipeline Network. Journal of Hazardous Materials 189 (1–2): 509–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannson, D. 1997. The Limits of Precaution. Foundations of Science 2: 293–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannson, S. 2003. Ethical Criteria of Risk Acceptance. Erkenntnis 59 (3): 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannson, S. 2010. The Harmful Influence of Decision Theory on Ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (5): 585–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, S.F., L. Carlsen, and J.A. Tickner. 2007. Chemicals Regulation and Precaution: Does REACH Really Incorporate the Precautionary Principle. Environmental Science & Policy 10 (5): 395–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J., and S. Holm. 2002. Extending Human Lifespan and the Precautionary Paradox. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (3): 355–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartzell-Nichols, L. 2012. Precaution and Solar Radiation Management. Ethics, Policy, and Environment 15: 158–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartzell-Nichols, L. 2013. From “the” Precautionary Principle to Precautionary Principles. Ethics, Policy, and Environment 16: 308–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartzell-Nichols., L. 2017. A Climate of Risk: Precautionary Principles, Catastrophes, and Climate Change. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hawthorne, F. 2005. Inside the FDA: The Business and Politics Behind the Drugs We Take and the Food We Eat. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, B. 2020. Progress Bias Versus Status Quo Bias in the Ethics of Emerging Science and Technology. Bioethics 34 (3): 252–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, S., and J. Harris. 1999. Precautionary Principle Stifles Discovery. Nature 400 (6743): 398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, F. 2019. Confirmation and Induction. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at https://www.iep.utm.edu/conf-ind/. Accessed 19 Jan 2021.

  • Hulme, M. 2009. Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • John, S.D. 2007. How to Take Deontological Concerns Seriously in Risk-Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Re-Interpretation of the Precautionary Principle. Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (4): 221–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaebnick, G.E., E. Heitman, J.P. Collins, J.A. Delborne, W.G. Landis, K. Sawyer, L.A. Taneyhill, and D.E. Winickoff. 2016. Precaution and Governance of Emerging Technologies. Science 354 (6313): 710–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. 1993. The Advancement of Science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koplin, J.J., C. Gyngell, and J. Savulescu. 2020. Germline Gene Editing and the Precautionary Principle. Bioethics 34 (1): 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraybill, D.B., K. Johnson-Weiner, and S.M. Nolt. 2018. The Amish. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozel, R.J. 2010. Stare decisis as Judicial Doctrine. Washington and Lee Law Review 67: 411–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky, S. 2017. The Unsteady State and Inertia of Chemical Regulation Under the US Toxic Substances Control Act. PLoS Biology 15 (12): e2002404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, revised ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenman J. 2018. Moral Naturalism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/#WhatMoraNatu. Accessed 19 Jan 2021.

  • Marchant, G. 2002. Biotechnology and the Precautionary Principle: Right Question, Wrong Answer. International Journal of Biotechnology 12 (1): 34–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon, K. 2009. Runaway Climate Change: A Justice-Based Case for Precautions. Journal of Social Philosophy 40: 187–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mervis J. 2017. Are We Going Too Fast on Driverless Cars? Science, December 14, 2017. Available at https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/are-we-going-too-fast-driverless-cars. Accessed 19 Jan 2021.

  • Miller D. 2017. Justice. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/. Accessed 19 Jan 2021.

  • Monteiro-Riviere, N.A., and C.L. Tran (eds.). 2014. Nanotoxicology: Progress Toward Nanomedicine, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munthe, C. 2011. The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risks. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 2009. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science & Technology Council. 2018. National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/National-Near-Earth-Object-Preparedness-Strategy-and-Action-Plan-23-pages-1MB.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2021.

  • National Weather Service. 2019. How Dangerous Is Lightning? Available at https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-odds. Accessed 19 Jan 2021.

  • O’Riordan, T., A. Jordan, and J. Cameron (eds.). 2001. Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle. London, UK: Cameron May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M. 2006. The Precautionary Principle Is Incoherent. Risk Analysis 26 (3): 595–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M. 2007a. Should the Precautionary Principle Guide Our Actions or Our Beliefs? Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (1): 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson M. 2007b. The Precautionary Principle Should Not Be Used as a Basis for Decision-Making. Talking Point on the Precautionary Principle. EMBO Reports 8 (4): 305–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, UK: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radder, H. 2019. From Commodification to the Common Good: Reconstructing Science, Technology, and Society. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D.B. 2001. DNA Patents and Human Dignity. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 29 (2): 153–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D.B. 2004. The Precautionary Principle and Medical Decision Making. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29: 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D.B. 2012. Environmental Health Ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik D.B., and D. A. Vallero. 2011. Geoengineering: An Idea Whose Time Has Come? Journal of Earth Science and Climate Change 2011 S1: 001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridge M. 2019. Moral Non-Naturalism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/#Int. Accessed 2 July 2020.

  • Samuelson, P.A., and W.D. Nordhaus. 2009. Economics, 19th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandin, P. 2004. Better Safe Than Sorry: Applying Philosophical Methods to the Debate on Risk and the Precautionary Principle. Stockholm: Theses in Philosophy from the Royal Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandin, P., M. Peterson, S.O. Hansson, C. Rudén, and A. Juthe. 2002. Five Charges Against the Precautionary Principle. Journal of Risk Research 5 (4): 287–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Science and Environmental Health Network. 1998. Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle. Available at http://www.who.int/ifcs/documents/forums/forum5/wingspread.doc. Accessed 19 Jan 2021.

  • Schulte, P., L. Alegret, I. Arenillas, J.A. Arz, P.J. Barton, P.R. Bown, T.J. Bralower, G.L. Christeson, P. Claeys, C.S. Cockell, G.S. Collins, A. Deutsch, T.J. Goldin, K. Goto, J.M. Grajales-Nishimura, R.A. Grieve, S.P. Gulick, K.R. Johnson, W. Kiessling, C. Koeberl, D.A. Kring, K.G. MacLeod, T. Matsui, J. Melosh, A. Montanari, J.V. Morgan, C.R. Neal, D.J. Nichols, R.D. Norris, E. Pierazzo, G. Ravizza, M. Rebolledo-Vieyra, W.U. Reimold, E. Robin, T. Salge, R.P. Speijer, A.R. Sweet, J. Urrutia-Fucugauchi, V. Vajda, M.T. Whalen, and P.S. Willumsen. 2010. The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary. Science 327 (5970): 1214–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute. 2019. About. Available at https://www.seti.org/about. Accessed 19 Jan 2021.

  • Shapere, D. 1966. Plausibility and Justification in the Development of Science. Journal of Philosophy 63 (20): 611–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K.S. 1991. Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K.S. 2007. Taking Action, Saving Lives: Our Duties to Protect Environmental and Public Health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Soule E. 2004. The Precautionary Principle and the Regulation of U.S. Food and Drug Safety. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (3): 333–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steel, D. 2015. Philosophy and the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, K. 2006. The Precautionary Principle: A New Approach to Public Decision-Making? Law, Probability and Risk 5 (1): 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C.R. 2005. Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tait, J. 2001. More Faust than Frankenstein: The European Debate About the Precautionary Principle and Risk Regulation for Genetically Modified Crops. Journal of Risk Research 4 (2): 175–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trouwborst, A. 2006. Precautionary Rights and Duties of States. Leiden: Martinus Nijhof.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Von Schomberg, R. 2012. The Precautionary Principle: Its Use Within Hard and Soft Law. European Journal of Risk Regulation. 2: 147–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wareham, C., and C. Nardini. 2015. Policy on Synthetic Biology: Deliberation, Probability, and the Precautionary Paradox. Bioethics 29 (2): 118–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteside, K. 2006. Precautionary Politics: Principle and Practice in Confronting Environmental Risk. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, K.M. 2018. The Ecocentrists: A History of Radical Environmentalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

    David B. Resnik

Authors
  1. David B. Resnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David B. Resnik .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Resnik, D.B. (2021). The Precautionary Principle. In: Precautionary Reasoning in Environmental and Public Health Policy. The International Library of Bioethics, vol 86. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70791-0_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation