Once And For All: The Precautionary Principle is Not Unscientific

authordefault
on

Some conservatives are immensely more fun to debate thanย others.

In the past month, a debate over left-right science abuse with Kenneth Green of the American Enterprise Institute led to him hurling charges of โ€œsocialism.โ€ย Notย kidding.

Unfortunately, โ€œCarol Browner is a socialistโ€ isnโ€™t an argument. Itโ€™s a heuristic device. Itโ€™s the kind of thing you say if you want to get emotive Tea Party reasoners whippedย up.

Ron Bailey of the Reason magazine is, in contrast, full ofโ€ฆreason. He weighed in last weekย on this topic, went through the issues, and came down slightly differently than I did on some of them, but actually agreed that the GOP is doing much worse now with respect toย science.

In the process, Ron also made me pretty concerned about Democrats and GM salmon. If thereโ€™s no serious risk hereโ€”and Ron and also this piece at Science Progress make a strong case that wayโ€”then we shouldnโ€™t be scare-mongering about thisย technology.

I want to say a few things about Ronโ€™s commentary, though, because I think it still has some flaws. In particular, I want to take on his criticism of the so-called โ€œprecautionary principle,โ€ which he charges is โ€œunscientific in the sense that it demands the impossible: Researchers can never show that any technological or scientific activity will never produce significantย harm.โ€

Even this would not be โ€œunscientificโ€ by my definition. It would still be a moral or policy position, albeit an indefensibleย one.

But of course, this is not what precaution, in a reasonable sense, actually means. Ron Baileyโ€™s own source on this matter, Obama administration OMB official Cass Sunstein, agrees withย me:

I have suggested that the weak versions of the precautionary principle are unobjectionable and important. Every day, people take steps (and incur costs) to avoid hazards that are far from certain. We do not walk in moderately dangerous areas at night; we exercise; we buy smoke detectors; we buckle our seatbelts; we might even avoid fatty foods. Sensible governments are willing to consider regulation of risks that, in individual cases or even in the aggregate, have a well under 100% chance of coming to fruition. The weak versions of the precautionary principle state a truismโ€”uncontroversial and necessary only to combat public confusion or the self-interested claims of private groups demanding unambiguous evidence of harm, which no rational society requires. This function should not be trivialized. Nearly aย  fifth of Americans, for example, recently agreed that โ€œuntil we are sure that global warming is really a problem, we should not take any steps that would have economic costs.โ€ Sometimes people do seem to seek certainty before showing a willingness toย  expend costs, and well-organized private groups like to exploit this fact. Insofar as the precautionary principle counteracts the tendency to demand certainty, it should beย approved.

This โ€œweakโ€ version of the precautionary principle is certainly the one I would espouse. Obviously, you canโ€™t demand that any person introducing any new product, service, or activity must first prove conclusively that no harm will ever come from it before allowing anything to go forward. That would throw total sand in the gears of everything, and is certainly not how precaution is practiced in the United States (where the government regulatory structure nevertheless remains, to my mind, broadlyย precautionary).

If you were to apply precaution in this mindless way, you could make a case that we should still be worried about vaccines and autism. Despite the many epidemiological studies and scientific consensus reports that have shown thereโ€™s no reason to worry about this risk, we’re definitely not, like,ย certainย โ€‹that vaccines areย safe.

But if you apply precaution in my and Sunsteinโ€™s weak version, you don’t worry about vaccines but you do end up very very concerned about global warming. Because we know itโ€™s real, and while thereโ€™s much uncertainty about the range and speed of the impacts, it is precisely that uncertainty that’s so disturbingโ€“because the magnitude of the consequences couldย staggering.

So you donโ€™t apply precaution when there isn’t any evidence of anything to worry about. Rather, when there is good evidence that you have something to worry about but you donโ€™t know how bad it is going to beโ€“and it could be quite badโ€“precaution becomes a sensible policyย indeed.

How do you make the distinction? You weigh the best science, plain and simple. And if it doesn’t suggest a riskโ€“as in the vaccine caseโ€“then move on. There are many, many other things worth worryingย about.

Have environmentalists ever gone a bit overboard with the precautionary principle? Sure they have. Iโ€™ve certainly heard it invoked as a slogan, rather than a sensible policy to address situations involving real but unknown risk. And I agree that itโ€™s a misuse of the principle to wield it against technologies, like GM crops, where scientific consensus reports show the risk to humans isnโ€™t a bigย deal.

So all that is conceded. But letโ€™s remember too: This is really a nuance in our broad debate over left-right scienceย abuse.

Whatโ€™s actually happening out there in the world, on the right wing, is far more extreme than gaming the precautionary principle. We’re talking about utter and often willful denial of scientific reality, including by leading policymakers and presidentialย candidates.

These people worry me, and I have evidence to support my concern. So I think we should employ the precautionary principle againstย further political triumphs by anti-scienceย ideologues.

The weak version, of courseโ€“stronglyย applied.

authordefault
Admin's short bio, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Voluptate maxime officiis sed aliquam! Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit.

Related Posts

on

DCI Groupโ€™s 2024 clients include the American Petroleum Institute, which has a history of undermining the scientific consensus on climate change.

DCI Groupโ€™s 2024 clients include the American Petroleum Institute, which has a history of undermining the scientific consensus on climate change.
on

The Reform UK leader baselessly suggested that farms were being cleared to make way for immigrants.

The Reform UK leader baselessly suggested that farms were being cleared to make way for immigrants.
on

The AER significantly underreports the number and scale of spills, says researcher Kevin Timoney.

The AER significantly underreports the number and scale of spills, says researcher Kevin Timoney.
Analysis
on

Poilievre has clearly not earned enough respect from the Trump administration to credibly defend Canadaโ€™s interests.

Poilievre has clearly not earned enough respect from the Trump administration to credibly defend Canadaโ€™s interests.