Bioethics 29 (2):118-125 (2015)

Christopher Wareham
University of the Witwatersrand
Synthetic biology is a cutting-edge area of research that holds the promise of unprecedented health benefits. However, in tandem with these large prospective benefits, synthetic biology projects entail a risk of catastrophic consequences whose severity may exceed that of most ordinary human undertakings. This is due to the peculiar nature of synthetic biology as a ‘threshold technology’ which opens doors to opportunities and applications that are essentially unpredictable. Fears about these potentially unstoppable consequences have led to declarations from civil society groups calling for the use of a precautionary principle to regulate the field. Moreover, the principle is prevalent in law and international agreements. Despite widespread political recognition of a need for caution, the precautionary principle has been extensively criticized as a guide for regulatory policy. We examine a central objection to the principle: that its application entails crippling inaction and incoherence, since whatever action one takes there is always a chance that some highly improbable cataclysm will occur. In response to this difficulty, which we call the ‘precautionary paradox,’ we outline a deliberative means for arriving at threshold of probability below which potential dangers can be disregarded. In addition, we describe a Bayesian mechanism with which to assign probabilities to harmful outcomes. We argue that these steps resolve the paradox. The rehabilitated PP can thus provide a viable policy option to confront the uncharted waters of synthetic biology research
Keywords risk management  probability  Bayesianism  ethics  synthetic biology  precautionary principle  deliberation
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/bioe.12068
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,916
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Risk and Asymmetry in Development Ethics.Julian Jonker - 2020 - African Journal of Business Ethics 14 (1):23-41.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Future Technologies, Dystopic Futures and the Precautionary Principle.Steve Clarke - 2005 - Ethics and Information Technology 7 (3):121-126.
A Core Precautionary Principle.Stephen M. Gardiner - 2006 - Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (1):33–60.
Editors' Introduction to Special Issue.Ute Deichmann, Michel Morange & Anthony S. Travis - 2012 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 55 (4):470-472.
Synthetic Biology: A Challenge to Mechanical Explanations in Biology?Michel Morange - 2012 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 55 (4):543-553.
The Precautionary Principle and the Concept of Precaution.Per Sandin - 2004 - Environmental Values 13 (4):461 - 475.
Formulating the Precautionary Principle.Neil A. Manson - 2002 - Environmental Ethics 24 (3):263-274.
Synthetic Biology Needs A Synthetic Bioethics.Paul B. Thompson - 2012 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 15 (1):1 - 20.
How Not to Criticize the Precautionary Principle.Jonathan Hughes - 2006 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (5):447 – 464.


Added to PP index

Total views
32 ( #330,722 of 2,433,174 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #462,722 of 2,433,174 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes