Implications of the Precautionary Principle: Is it a Threat to Science?

Scientific research is of proven value to protecting public health and the environment from current and future problems. We explore the extent to which the Precautionary Principle is a threat to this rôle for science and technology. Not surprisingly for a relatively simple yet still incompletely defined concept, supporters of the Precautionary Principle come from different viewpoints, including a viewpoint that is at least uneasy with the rôle of science, and particularly its use in risk assessment. There are also aspects of the Precautionary Principle that inherently restrict obtaining and using science. The Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) provisions in the US Clean Air Act Amendments are an example of the Precautionary Principle, which both shifted the burden of proof so that the onus is now on showing a listed compound is harmless, and required maximum available control technology (MACT) instead of a primarily risk-based approach to pollution control. Since its passage in 1990 there has been a decrease in research funding for studies of HAPs. Other potential problems include that once MACT regulations are established, it may be difficult to develop new technological approaches that will further improve air pollution control; that by treating all regulated HAPs similarly, no distinction is made between those that provide a higher or lower risk; and that there is a perverse incentive to use less well studied agents that are not on the existing list. As acting on the Precautionary Principle inherently imposes significant costs for what is a potentially erroneous action, additional scientific study should be required to determine if the precautionary action was successful. If we are to maximize the value of the Precautionary Principle to public health and the environment, it is crucial that its impact not adversely affect the potent preventive rôle of science and technology.     

The Precautionary Principle: Implications for Risk Management Strategies

The European Commission has published a Communication on the Precautionary Principle and a White Book on Governance. These provide us (as research civil servants of the Commission) an institutional framework for handling scientific information that is often incomplete, uncertain, and contested. But, although the Precautionary Principle is intuitively straightforward to understand, there is no agreed way of applying it to real decision-making. To meet this perceived need, researchers have proposed a vast number of taxonomies. These include ignorance auditing, type one-two-three errors, a combination of uncertainty and decision stakes through post-normal science and the plotting of ignorance of probabilities against ignorance of consequences. Any of these could be used to define a precautionary principle region inside a multidimensional space and to position an issue within that region. The rôle of anticipatory research is clearly critical but scientific input is only part of the picture. It is difficult to imagine an issue where the application of the Precautionary Principle would be non-contentious. From genetically-modified food to electro-smog, from climate change to hormone growth in meat, it is clear that: 1) risk and cost-benefit are only part of the picture; 2) there are ethical issues involved; 3) there is a plurality of interests and perspectives that are often in conflict; 4) there will be losers and winners whatever decision is made. Operationalisation of the Precautionary Principle must preserve transparency. Only in this way will the incommensurable costs and benefits associated with different stakeholders be registered. A typical decision will include the following sorts of considerations: 1) the commercial interests of companies and the communities that depend on them; 2) the worldviews of those who might want a greener, less consumerist society and/or who believe in the sanctity of human or animal life; 3) potential benefits such as enabling the world's poor to improve farming; 4) risks such as pollution, gene-flow, or the effects of climate change. In this paper we will discuss the use of a combination of methods on which we have worked and that we consider useful to frame the debate and facilitate the dialogue among stakeholders on where and how to apply the Precautionary Principle.     

Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Rigorous Science and Solid Ethics

The Precautionary Principle came out of European efforts to clean-up and protect marine ecosystems in the 1980s. Since then, several North American activities have elaborated on this approach in U.S. environmental programs. Unfortunately, US organizations and agencies have not developed strategies and guidelines for implementing the Precautionary Principle in either statutory or voluntary environmental programs. Recent interest in this approach from some members of the scientific, non-profit, and regulatory communities highlights the need to understand the history and conceptual basis of the Precautionary Principle. In this paper we address several of these issues. First, we summarize the pertinent US history of the Precautionary Principle. Next, we describe the scientific framework for the principle. Finally, we make the case that this provides unique opportunities for scientists to obtain meaning in their work by fulfilling what has been called the new Social Contract.     

Methodologic Implications of the Precautionary Principle: Causal Criteria

Applying the Precautionary Principle to public health requires a re-evaluation of the methods of inference currently used to make claims about disease causation from epidemiologic and other forms of scientific evidence. In current thinking, a well-established, near-certain causal relationship implies highly consistent statistically significant results across many different studies, large relative risk estimates, extensive understanding of biological mechanisms and dose-response relationships, positive prevention trial results, a clear temporal relationship between cause and effect, and other conditions spelled out in terms of the widely-used causal criteria. The Precautionary Principle, however, states that preventive measures are to be taken when cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. What evidentiary conditions, as reflected in the causal criteria, will be certain enough to warrant precautionary preventive action? This paper argues that minimum evidentiary requirements for causation need to be articulated if the Precautionary Principle is to be successfully incorporated into public health practice. Two precautionary changes to criteria-based methods of causal inference are examined: reducing the number of criteria and weakening the rules of inference accompanying the criteria. Such changes point in the direction of identifying minimum evidentiary conditions, but would be premature without better understanding how well current methods of causal inference work.     

Incorporating Science,Technology, Fairness,and Accountability in Environmental,Health, and Safety Decisions

The Precautionary Principle is in sharp political focus today because (1) the nature of scientific uncertainty is changing and (2) there is increasing pressure to base governmental action on more “rational” schemes, such as cost-benefit analysis and quantitative risk assessment, the former being an embodiment of ‘rational choice theory’ promoted by the Chicago school of law and economics. The Precautionary Principle has been criticized as being both too vague and too arbitrary to form a basis for rational decision making. The assumption underlying this criticism is that any scheme not based on cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment is both irrational and without secure foundation in either science or economics. This paper contests that view and makes explicit the rational tenets of the Precautionary Principle within an analytical framework as rigorous as uncertainties permit, and one that mirrors democratic values embodied in regulatory, compensatory, and common law. Unlike other formulations that reject risk assessment, this paper argues that risk assessment can be used within the formalism of tradeoff analysis—a more appropriate alternative to traditional cost-benefit analysis and one that satisfies the need for well-grounded public policy decision making. This paper will argue that the precautionary approach is the most appropriate basis for policy, even when large uncertainties do not exist, especially where the fairness of the distributions of costs and benefits of hazardous activities and products are a concern. Furthermore, it will offer an approach to making decisions within an analytic framework, based on equity and justice, to replace the economic paradigm of utilitarian cost-benefit analysis.     

On Being Careful What We Wish for: Some Difficulties with Operationalizing the Precautionary Principle

An important part of the Precautionary Principle is that taking action is justified for protecting public health even when there is some scientific uncertainty. We examine here the two components of this central feature of the precautionary principle, scientific uncertainty and decision making. In order to operationalize the principle we should examine the consequences of its decision rules and how they perform under various conditions. The performance of decision rules in disease screening is measured by the sensitivity and specificity of the rule, but the consequences for the patient are given by the positive and negative predictive values, determined not only by the performance of the rule by the prevalence of the disease in the population. We look at positive and negative predictive value of the Precautionary Principle from the standopoint of the costs to one or other parts of society, show that the usual rule which tends to maximize sensitivity in favor of specificity may have unexpected consequences, and demonstrate that it is sometimes possible to trade sensitivity and specificity off against each other in a way the improves both positive and negative predictive value, or worse, degrades both.We conclude by asking if certain strategies are better for one or the other kinds of uncertainty.     

The Precautionary Principle,Epidemiology and the Ethics of Delay

Ethics tells us: do good and do no harm and invokes the norms of justice, equity and respect for autonomy in protecting and promoting health and well-being. The Precautionary Principle, a contemporary re-definition of Bradford Hill's case for action, gives us a common sense rule for doing good by preventing harm to public health from delay: when in doubt about the presence of a hazard, there should be no doubt about its prevention or removal. It shifts the burden of proof from showing presence of risk to showing absence of risk, aims to do good by preventing harm, and subsumes the upstream strategies of the DPSEEA (Driving Forces Pressure Stress Exposure Effect Action) model and downstream strategies from molecular epidemiology for detection and prevention of risk. The Precautionary Principle has emerged because of the ethical import of delays in detection of risks to human health and the environment. Ethical principles, the Precautionary Principle, the DPSEEA model and molecular epidemiology all imply re-emphasizing epidemiology's classic rôle for early detection and prevention. Delays in recognizing risks from past exposures and acting on the findings (e.g., cigarette smoking and lung cancer, asbestos, organochlorines and endocrine disruption, radiofrequency, raised travel speeds) were examples of failures that were not only scientific, but ethical, since they resulted in preventable harm to exposed populations. These may delay results from, among other things, external and internal determinants of epidemiologic investigations of hazard and risk, including misuse of tests of statistical significance. Furthermore, applying the Precautionary Principle to ensure justice, equity, and respect for autonomy raises questions concerning the short-term costs of implementation to achieve long-term goals and the principles that guide compensation.     

Multidisciplinary Research: Strategies for Assessing Chemical Mixtures to Reduce Risk of Exposure and Disease

The Precautionary Principle is founded on the use of comprehensive, coordinated research to protect human health in the face of uncertain risks. Research directed at key data gaps may significantly reduce the uncertainty underlying the complexities of assessing risk to mixtures. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has taken a leadership rôle in building the scientific infrastructure to address these uncertainties. The challenge is to incorporate the objectives as defined by the Precautionary Principle with the knowledge gained in understanding the multifactorial nature of gene-environment interactions. Through efforts such as the National Center for Toxicogenomics, the National Toxicology Program, and the Superfund Basic Research Program, NIEHS is translating research findings into public health prevention strategies using a 3-pronged approach: (1) identify/evaluate key deviations from additivity for mixtures; (2) develop/apply/link advanced technologies and bioinformatics to quantitative tools for an integrated science-based approach to chemical mixtures; (3) translate/disseminate these technologies into useable, practical means to reduce exposure and the risk of disease. Preventing adverse health effects from environmental exposures requires translation of research findings to affected communities and must include a high level of public involvement. Integrating these approaches are necessary to advance understanding of the health relevance of exposure to mixtures.     

Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle

This essay attempts to provide an analytical apparatus which may be used for finding an authoritative formulation¹ of the Precautionary Principle. Several formulations of the Precautionary Principle are examined. Four dimensions of the principle are identified: (1) the threat dimension, (2) the uncertainty dimension, (3) the action dimension, and (4) the command dimension. It is argued that the Precautionary Principle can be recast into the following if-clause, containing these four dimensions: “If there is (1) a threat, which is (2) uncertain, then (3) some kind of action (4) is mandatory.” The phrases expressing these dimensions may vary in (a) precision and (b) strength. It is shown that it is the dimension containing the weakest phrase that determines the strength of the entire principle. It is suggested that the four-dimensional if-clause be used as an analytical apparatus in negotiations of the Precautionary Principle.     

Major Concerns in Developing Countries: Applications of the Precautionary Principle in Ecuador

Ecuador is a Latin American country with one of the biggest biodiversities. At the same time, social and environmental problems are also big. Poverty, political and social problems as well as questions like old transport systems, imported hazards from industrialized countries and lack of information and weak health care systems are the framework of this situation. The most common problems are the use of heavy metals in many activities without safety and health protection, a low technological oil production during two decades, intensive use of pesticides in agriculture, and some other chemical risks. A limited capacity to develop prevention strategies, reduced technical and scientific skills, and the absence of a reliable information and control system, lead to a weak response mechanism. The Precautionary Principle could help to stimulate prevention, protection and to have a new tool to improve the interest in environment and health problems. Reinforcing the presence of international organizations like WHO and ILO, establishing bridges among scientific organizations from developed and developing countries and introducing the Precautionary Principle in the legislation and daily practices of industry and agriculture could lead to an improvement in our environment and health.     

The Precautionary Principle in the Information Society

The Precautionary Principle aims to anticipate and minimize potentially serious or irreversible risks under conditions of uncertainty. Thus it preserves the potential for future developments. It has been incorporated into many international treaties and pieces of national legislation for environmental protection and sustainable development. However the Precautionary Principle has not yet been applied systematically to novel Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and their potential environmental, social, and health effects. In this article we argue that precaution is necessary in this field and show how the general principle of precaution can be put in concrete terms in the context of the information society. We advocate precautionary measures directed towards pervasive applications of ICT (Pervasive Computing) because of their inestimable potential impacts on society.     

The Precautionary Principle and Statistical Approaches to Uncertainty

The central challenge from the Precautionary Principle to statistical methodology is to help delineate (preferably quantitatively) the possibility that some exposure is hazardous, even in cases where this is not established beyond reasonable doubt. The classical approach to hypothesis testing is unhelpful, because lack of significance can be due either to uninformative data or to genuine lack of effect (the Type II error problem). Its inversion, bioequivalence testing, might sometimes be a model for the Precautionary Principle in its ability to ‘prove the null hypothesis.’ Current procedures for setting safe exposure levels are essentially derived from these classical statistical ideas, and we outline how uncertainties in the exposure and response measurements affect the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL), the Benchmark approach and the “Hockey Stick” model. A particular problem concerns model uncertainty: usually these procedures assume that the class of models describing dose/response is known with certainty; this assumption is however often violated, perhaps particularly often when epidemiological data form the source of the risk assessment, and regulatory authorities have occasionally resorted to some average based on competing models. The recent methodology of Bayesian model averaging might be a systematic version of this, but is this an arena for the Precautionary Principle to come into play?     

Ecological Risk Assessment and the Precautionary Principle

The Precautionary Principle, generated during the late 1980s as a unifying principle for regulating discharge of hazardous material into the North Sea, has been broadened to include a shifting of the burden of proof to the proponent of a proposed activity, adoption of a more holistic assessment process, and encompassing all environmental management decisions, not just pollution prevention activities. We argue that the Precautionary Principle remains a management philosophy, not a substitute for risk assessment. Risk assessment is a tool for organizing information used in environmental management decisions. However, increasing attention to reducing the Type II error of risk assessment studies would significantly reduce the skepticism with which many view the risk assessment process. A critical review of default assumptions used in risk assessments, inclusion of indirect effects within an ecologically relevant spatial/temporal framework, and better communication between risk assessors and risk managers also would enhance the acceptability of the process. Risk assessment can provide a sound basis for management decisions regardless of the underlying philosophies of environmental conservation or utilitarianism, but only if the inherent biases in the risk assessment assumptions are acknowledged explicitly throughout the assessment and management processes.     

Commentary: The Rôle of Toxicology in Prevention and Precaution

Advocates of the Precautionary Principle have recently called for a “new science” to support the goals of precaution-based environmental and occupational health policy. While much attention has been given to epidemiology, the evidentiary science most relevant to precaution, or prevention, is toxicology. Opportunities for enhancing the rôle of toxicology in public policy must consider current biases in the field. Thus, rather than a “new science,” advocates for change should focus upon ensuring that current scientific methods are appropriate and that interpretations of scientific data are accurate.     

Some Legal Implications of the Precautionary Principle: Improving Information-Generation and Legal Protections

In creating a legal agenda in service of the Precautionary Principle, the idea of precaution requires more inventories and better monitoring of the condition of public and workforce health than at present. Rectifying problems of the past to better serve the aims of precaution will require more affirmative pre-market and much more post-market knowledge-generation by those who create and use potentially toxic substances, improved pre-market review of substances, better responses to early warnings, and quicker protective post-market responses to evidence of toxicity. This paper conceptualizes a model pre-market screening law to highlight the need for primary prevention measures and to provide philosophic ideas for improving post-market laws and addressing a large universe of existing substances that have been poorly characterized. Although retrospective personal injury law does not have good mechanisms for precaution, even this can be more protective than it is at present by enhancing causes of action for reasonable fear of disease and medical monitoring, and moving to create new causes of action for failure to develop and disseminate information needed to assess the toxicity of substances.     

Risk Communication and the Precautionary Principle

The perception of risks for environment and health deriving from globalization processes and an uncontrolled use of modern technologies is growing everywhere. The greater the capacity of controlling living conditions, the larger is the possibility of misusing this power. In environmental and occupational health research we tend to reduce the complexity of the observed phenomena in order to facilitate conclusions. In social and political sciences complexity is an essential element of the context, which needs to be continuously considered. The Precautionary Principle is a tool for facing complexity and uncertainty in health risk management. This paper is aimed at demonstrating that this is not only a problem of technical risk assessment. Great attention should also be paid to improve risk communication. Communication between the stakeholders (experts, decision makers, political and social leaders, media, groups of interest and people involved) is possibly the best condition to be successful in health risk management. Nevertheless, this process usually runs up against severe obstacles. These are not only caused by existing conflicts of interest. Differences in values, languages, perceptions, resources to have access to information, and to express one's own point of view are other key aspects.     

外来入侵杂草传统生物防治的生态风险及其防范对策

长期大量实践说明,引进天敌防治外来入侵杂草的传统生物防治方法是治理外来入侵杂草的一条切实可行的有效途径,但对其潜在的生态风险——对本土生物的直接或间接不良影响不容忽视。利用传统评价方法预测候选天敌的生态风险存在缺陷,主要表现在：（1）寄主专一性测定过分依赖室内进行的生理寄主范围测定结果,对生态寄主范围（实际寄主范围）问题重视不够,后者指在新环境中的一系列物理和生物条件下的寄主利用预测;（2）在生理寄主范围测定中,过分依赖完成生长发育的可能性,对行为、遗传性状以及系统发育关系重视不够;（3）在风险评估中,过多强调对经济作物的风险,而对自然生态系统的风险重视不够。对此,建议：（1）鼓励对已释放的天敌进行回顾性跟踪研究,从而为杂草生物防治实践提供生态学理论支撑;（2）在运用生物防治手段对付外来入侵杂草实践中,建议采用“有害推论”的预防性原则,以避免在面临入侵生物重大威胁时草率做出释放天敌的决策;（3）在评估候选天敌风险中重视生态效应的风险评估。     

The precautionary principle: a double edged sword?

There is no doubt that the introduction of quality system principles and regulation to blood and tissue services in the 1990’s has brought about significant improvements in the control of processes and the quality of products being released for patient care. But, as regulation extends into new areas of cellular and tissue therapy, it is perhaps time to review the regulatory paradigm within which we work, and the principles that underpin it. At what point do the costs of regulation exceed the benefits to be gained? At what point to regulations cease to yield measurable benefits to patient care and safety at all, but instead become simply a burden on service providers and businesses, and ultimately the community as a whole? And is there a point at which regulation actually compromises patient care and safety, or the development of new technologies? In the early stages of regulation, there is demonstrable cost-benefit as assessed by product quality and patient outcomes. However, there is inevitably a “law of diminishing returns”, whereby the degree of improvement that can be achieved decreases and the cost of achieving that benefit increases. What has not yet been determined is whether, as regulations and regulators become more precise and more demanding, there remains a measurable net cost benefit over time, or whether there is a point at which the cost of further improvement matches, or even exceeds, the benefits to be gained. A key underpinning of the regulatory philosophy is the “Precautionary Principle”. This paper will focus on the application of the Precautionary Principle in the area of blood and tissues, which encompasses the burgeoning field of cellular therapies.     

Asbestos in Developing Countries: Magnitude of Risk and Its Practical Implications

In developing countries, aggressive marketing of chrysotile asbestos continues as a result of restrictions on its use being imposed by the developed countries. In the Asian continent, China and India are emerging as the major users of asbestos. There is enough evidence to link chrysotile with pulmonary fibrosis and lung cancer in humans, even at low levels of exposure, hence the need to apply the Precautionary Principle for phasing out its use globally. Due to poor occupational health and safety systems in developing countries and difficulties in early detection of pulmonary malignancy related to asbestos, the statistics remain sketchy. This is hampering efforts to create pressure on policy makers and to counter the propaganda of the asbestos industry. The International Labour Office believes that more than 100,000 deaths a year occur from asbestos-related disease. In the view of studies published in Europe and Australia, the number of deaths due to such malignancies will peak around the year 2020 and could be anywhere between half a million to a million. That means more than a million deaths will occur in developing countries. At about the same time when asbestos-related deaths start to decrease in developed countries, their number will begin to rise in developing countries. This presents a major challenge to the international scientific community.