The ethics of doing policy relevant science: The precautionary principle and the significance of non-significant results [Book Review]
Graduate studies at Western
Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (4):401-412 (1998)
|Abstract||The precautionary principle is a widely accepted policy norm for decision making under uncertainty in environmental management, However, some of the traditional ways of ensuring trustworthy results used in environmental science and of communicating them work contrary to the general goal of providing the political system and the public with as good an input as possible in the decision making process. For example, it is widely accepted that scientists should only communicate results fulfilling the traditional scientific standard for hypothesis testing. The need for introducing complementary norms in environmental science is illustrated by a recent discussion among scientists on how the precautionary principle should be used in the context of marine biological studies. This discussion highlights the importance of the use of statistical power in communicating scientific results to decision makers and to the general public as well as to the scientific peers. We argue that it would be unethical to report only certainties—because of the need of early warnings—and it would in the same way be unethical to hide the uncertainties. Environmental science can make a better contribution to environmental decision making, if the available knowledge is communicated in a manner which allows for insight on how strong the evidence is.|
|Keywords||Precautionary principle scientific responsibility communication policy relevant science statistical power|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
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.
Russell Powell (2010). What's the Harm? An Evolutionary Theoretical Critique of the Precautionary Principle. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (2):181-206.
John Lemons, Kristin Shrader-Frechette & Carl Cranor (1997). The Precautionary Principle: Scientific Uncertainty and Type I and Type II Errors. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 2 (2):207-236.
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.
Stephen F. Haller & James Gerrie (2007). The Role of Science in Public Policy: Higher Reason, or Reason for Hire? [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (2):139-165.
Anton Petrenko & Dan McArthur (2010). Between Same-Sex Marriages and the Large Hadron Collider : Making Sense of the Precautionary Principle. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (3):591-610.
Jonathan Hughes (2006). How Not to Criticize the Precautionary Principle. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (5):447 – 464.
Steve Clarke (2005). Future Technologies, Dystopic Futures and the Precautionary Principle. Ethics and Information Technology 7 (3):121-126.
Stephen John (2010). In Defence of Bad Science and Irrational Policies: An Alternative Account of the Precautionary Principle. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (1):3 - 18.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #170,177 of 739,325 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,325 )
How can I increase my downloads?