Jove
Visualize
Contact Us

Related Experiment Videos

The precautionary principle is incoherent.

Martin Peterson1

  • 1Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, UK. mbp24@cam.ac.uk

Risk Analysis : an Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis
|July 13, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Australia II: A Case Study in Engineering Ethics.

Science and engineering ethics·2024
Same author

Value Change, Energy Systems, and Rational Choice: The Expected Center of Gravity Principle.

Science and engineering ethics·2023
Same author

The Ethics of Technology: Response to Critics.

Science and engineering ethics·2018
Same author

Yes, The Precautionary Principle Is Incoherent.

Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis·2017
Same author

Introduction: Values and norms in modeling.

Studies in history and philosophy of science·2014
Same author

Nuclear power is neither right nor wrong: the case for a tertium datur in the ethics of technology.

Science and engineering ethics·2013
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

The precautionary principle cannot be reasonably applied to decisions with fatal outcomes. Impossibility theorems demonstrate its failure to meet rational decision-making criteria, though it may serve other policy roles.

Area of Science:

  • Decision theory
  • Risk assessment
  • Policy analysis

Background:

  • The precautionary principle is widely used in policy-making for uncertain risks.
  • Its application to decisions with potentially fatal outcomes remains contentious.
  • Existing frameworks struggle to reconcile the principle with rational decision-making.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate the applicability of the precautionary principle to decisions involving fatal outcomes.
  • To propose criteria for rational decision-making rules.
  • To demonstrate the inherent limitations of the precautionary principle in such contexts.

Main Methods:

  • Development of desiderata for rational decision-making rules.
  • Proof of two impossibility theorems to assess the precautionary principle against these desiderata.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of the principle's implications in medicine, biotechnology, and environmental management.

    • Main Results:

    • Demonstrated that no version of the precautionary principle can satisfy the proposed desiderata for rational decision-making.
    • Proved two impossibility theorems highlighting fundamental conflicts.
    • Established that the principle is not a reasonable rule for decisions with fatal outcomes.

    Conclusions:

    • The precautionary principle is unsuitable as a rational decision-making rule for choices with potentially fatal consequences.
    • Alternative interpretations, such as an argumentative tool or epistemic principle, may retain relevance in policy discussions.
    • Further research is needed to explore these alternative roles and their implications.