How not to criticize the precautionary principle

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (5):447 – 464 (2006)
The precautionary principle has its origins in debates about environmental policy, but is increasingly invoked in bioethical contexts. John Harris and Søren Holm argue that the principle should be rejected as incoherent, irrational, and representing a fundamental threat to scientific advance and technological progress. This article argues that while there are problems with standard formulations of the principle, Harris and Holm's rejection of all its forms is mistaken. In particular, they focus on strong versions of the principle and fail to recognize that weaker forms, which may escape their criticisms, are both possible and advocated in the literature.
Keywords precautionary principle  ethics of risk
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/03605310600912642
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 23,209
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
James Wilson (2007). GM Crops: Patently Wrong? [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (3):261-283.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

37 ( #127,794 of 1,941,042 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #334,047 of 1,941,042 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.