David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Foundations of Science 2 (2):207-236 (1997)
We provide examples of the extent and nature of environmental and human health problems and show why in the United States prevailing scientific and legal burden of proof requirements usually cannot be met because of the pervasiveness of scientific uncertainty. We also provide examples of how may assumptions, judgments, evaluations, and inferences in scientific methods are value-laden and that when this is not recognized results of studies will appear to be more factual and value-neutral than warranted. Further, we show that there is a "tension" between the use of the 95 percent confidence rule as a normative basis to reduce speculation in scientific knowledge and other public policy and moral concerns embodied by the adoption of a precautionary principle. Finally, although there is no precise agreement regarding what a precautionary principle might entail, we make several recommendations regarding the placement of the burden of proof and the standard of proof that ought to be required in environmental and human health matters.
|Keywords||Precautionary principle Sustainable development Scientific uncertainty|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Anne Myhr & Bjørn Myskja (2011). Precaution or Integrated Responsibility Approach to Nanovaccines in Fish Farming? A Critical Appraisal of the UNESCO Precautionary Principle. Nanoethics 5 (1):73-86.
Russell Powell (2010). What's the Harm? An Evolutionary Theoretical Critique of the Precautionary Principle. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (2):181-206.
Jonathan Hughes (2006). How Not to Criticize the Precautionary Principle. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (5):447 – 464.
B. D. (2003). Is the Precautionary Principle Unscientific? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 34 (2):329-344.
Henk van den Belt & Bart Gremmen (2002). Between Precautionary Principle and “Sound Science”: Distributing the Burdens of Proof. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15 (1):103-122.
Stellan Welin & Lene Buhl-Mortensen (1998). The Ethics of Doing Policy Relevant Science: The Precautionary Principle and the Significance of Non-Significant Results. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (4):401-412.
Carl F. Cranor (2004). Toward Understanding Aspects of the Precautionary Principle. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (3):259 – 279.
Anne Ingeborg Myhr (2010). A Precautionary Approach to Genetically Modified Organisms: Challenges and Implications for Policy and Science. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (6):501-525.
Anne Ingeborg Myhr & Terje Traavik (2002). The Precautionary Principle: Scientific Uncertainty and Omitted Research in the Context of GMO Use and Release. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15 (1):73-86.
Carl F. Cranor (2001). Learning From the Law to Address Uncertainty in the Precautionary Principle. Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (3):313-326.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads33 ( #43,656 of 1,018,146 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #65,321 of 1,018,146 )
How can I increase my downloads?