Uncertainty and Precaution

1. Uncertainty and Precaution Matthias KaiserDirector, Prof. Dr. phil.The National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT) Norway

2. Uncertain science? • The belief in numbers: • and its use in bad / biased research • and also in other science within a policy context • The limits to prognostic accuracy • because of the lack of sufficient / good data • because of the transition from real systems to idealised models (trade-off between increased accuracy and ignorance) • because of the behaviour of complex systems, non-linearity etc. (existence of several stable states) • Failure of environmental impact assessments • Existence of scientific disagreement / dispute

3. Very brief history of the PP • Origin ….. ? • The North Sea Treaties (Bremen 1984, London 1987, Den Haag 1990, Esbjerg 1995) • Montreal Protocol (1987) • Paris Convention PARCOM (1989) • Maastricht Treaty, EU, chapter 130 R, section 2 • Rio Declaration (1992), article 15 • EU communication on the Precautionary Principle, February 2000 • Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 29 January 2000 • etc. etc. ….

4. Significant differences in formulations • The North Sea Treaties (Bremen 1984, London 1987, Den Haag 1990, Esbjerg 1995) From: ”… timely preventive measures …” given ”insufficient 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…” tofinally: ”…the guiding principle ...is the precautionary principle … - …the goal of reducing discharges and emissions … with the aim of their elimination.”

5. Standard formulation in Rio Declaration: • “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

6. EU communication on the PP, 2000 • ”The precautionary principle applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen by the EU”

7. Apply PP to what? • Old technologies / practice with new knowledge / data • Resistance from ”familiarity” • Often large socio-economical consequences • Dependent on alternatives • New technologies / practice with little knowledge / data on effects • Higher threshold on acceptance of technology • Often demanding new regulation anyway • Foregoing benefits as rhetorical issue

8. NENTs criteria for applying PP: • 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 now, effective counter-action later will be made more difficult.

9. What are PP strategies? • All measures that can be assumed to effectively reduce the risk of possible harm to some degree • Possible measures include: • Technical measures, new technology • Regulative measures • Political (counter-) incentives, law, international treaties • Economical measures

10. Example of regulative strategies For instance, in the xenotransplantation-case: • a moratorium (refrain from positive action for a limited period of time) • a step-by-step, case-by-case 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.

11. Who decides on PP • Since there is no purely objective basis for when to apply PP, or what strategies to choose for PP, all such decisions will be value-dependent • Modern democracies are typically pluralistic societies • Thus, decisions based on PP need to be integrated into democratic fora for debate • Typically, participatory measures (should) precede final decisions • Various participatory decisions tools (e.g. consensus conferences) are developing

12. Four value based strategies: SOCIETYrobustNATURErobust delicate delicate Deep ecology Political steering Engineering Clean technology

13. Conclusions: • PP is not objective / pure science, nor pure politics; PP connects both areas • PP cannot be defined in detail, but characterised in sufficient detail to provide for a guide / norm for action • Science needs to make uncertainties visible • PP is always value based in several respects, more so than science • Good decision making on PP requires democratic debate with participatory measures