Ethics, science, and precaution

1. Ethics, science, and precaution Matthias KaiserNational Committees for Research Ethics, Norway

2. Content: • Responsibility and ideology in science for policy • Remarks on the ethics of science • Applying the PP • Precautionary measures • Precaution and participation • Conclusion

3. Responsibility and ideology in science for policy • Two Norwegian Government reports: to apply or not to apply the PP? • Gm food versus xenotransplantation:uncertainties yes, but do they matter? • The concept of sound science and scientific facts • Public perception

4. Remarks on the ethics of science • A wide notion of ethics: including co-responsibility for results • The PP as an adequate subject for ethical scrutiny • The concept of culpable ignorance • Utilise all available (scientific) knowledge • The PP is never “objective”, always implying values

5. Applying the PP • Witness the North Sea Treaties (Bremen 1984, London 1987, The Hague 1990, Esbjerg 1995): • From ”… timely preventive measures …” given ”insufficent state of knowledge” • via: ”… a precautionary approach is necessary which may require action … even before a causal link has been established by absolutely clear scientific evidence...” • and: ”…apply the precautionary principle … even when there is no scientific evidence to prove a causal link…” • to finally: ”…the guiding principle ...is the precautionary principle … - …the goal of reducing discharges and emissions … with the aim of their elimination.”

6. NENT’s criteria: • there exist considerable scientific uncertainties; • there exist scenarios (or models) of possible harm that are scientifically reasonable (i.e. based on some scientifically acceptable reasoning); • uncertainties cannot be reduced without at the same time increasing ignorance of other relevant factors; • the potential harm is sufficiently serious or even irreversible for present or future generations; • if one delays action, effective counter-action later will be made more difficult.

7. Precautionary measures: For instance, in the xeno-case: • a moratorium (refrain from positive action for a limited period of time) • a step-by-step strategy with pre-defined targets for research before development is brought another step forward • a go-slow strategy where practical use is restricted to few applications over a longer time • a monitoring strategy where a system is set up to report on occurring problems immediately and possibly affected individuals are contacted and isolated.

8. PP-strategies imply value choices On the basis of what we believe we make trade-offs between how we value both: • Nature & • Society • Risks are nearly always related to both of them

9. Precaution and participation • Long-term strategies but short term politics? • Complex issues makes science deliver the premisses • Modern democracies are pluralistic • Those that are affected by a risk should have a say

10. Particpatory tools • Consensus conferences • Scenario workshops • Round-tables • Etc. etc. - more study needed

11. Conclusion • The concept of culpable ignorance makes us look around for information • Relevancy decided by values • Choices between strategies invariably based on preferences of values • The greatest challenge is perhaps getting consensus on the values.