Talk:Precautionary principle

sources i have been looking at

Things have evolved a lot in the past ten years on the ground, especially between the US and EU with regard to PP/risk assessment. A lot of blending, from both sides. A lot of this article is based on 15 year old ideas.

• PMID 22430837 (review)
• PMID 21332494 (review)
• PMID 20850572 (review)
• 2013 article that has some very good review parts (need to use those and avoid the [[WP:PRIMARY[[ aspects: http://www.hunton.com/files/Publication/7aeacc21-e8c1-41d6-a6be-30800f21afb6/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/bd8ef806-a952-4da6-9e7d-bc6c070d95e7/Trade_the_Precautionary_Principle_and_Post-Modern_Regulatory_Process.pdf
• 2013 paper - unfortunately cannot cite this but very useful http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/rpp/J-Wiener_Reg__Gov.pdf
• 2010 book http://books.google.com/books?id=YbmywR22OuwC&dq
• 2007 - about as old as we should go - this too is mixed secondary/primary: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=wmelpr
• 2007 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1007404

"Fields typically concerned by the precautionary principle are the possibility of:"

"Fields typically concerned by the precautionary principle are the possibility of:" - what does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.165.103 (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I want to add on the notes about the precautionary principle Yiga uthman (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

disputed?

It seems to me that very few surviving scientist dispute the precautionary principle. Can I mail you a package with instructions on how to mix them to keep yourself warm. Will you just follow my instructions without taking precautions? Clearly specifically when to use the precautionary principle is up to discussion but are there really that many rational people who dispute it's utility?

Biofuel (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The article is not about a common sense "precaution", which you are trying to exemplify here. The article discusses a complex and far-fetching epistemological, philosophical and legal construct and from even brief scan of the article's contents it should be clear that every single aspect of the principle is disputed. There is no single accepted definition - there are at least 14 of them, differing in how far they go, from general, common-sense recommendation to be careful (which is criticised as truism) to "all new technology is suspected until proven safe". The latter is criticised as extreme and self-excluding as you can't "prove" safety of something you can't research. Furthermore, there's no consensus on scope of applicability, legal definition, there's no consensus literally on anything related to the principle. And majority of the criticism originates specifically from the scientific community who was most severely impacted by broad bans on research in fields such as genetic engineering, which was targeted in spite of lack of any scientific evidence of danger, or even presence of evidence showing lack of danger, but still using "precaution" as a pretext. Cloud200 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually it is disputed. Of you apply the precautionary principal to itself - you can't use it - it forbids it's own use. The fallacy come from the reality that not doing something can also cause unforeseeable harm as well.

There is an old maxim that addresses this - precautionary principal implies prediction.

Those who have knowledge don't predict. Those who predict don't have knowledge -- Lao Tzu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Does it apply when the change is 'acting to prevent harm', or just when the change is 'acting to gain benefit'?

This is a 'guidelines to wear face-masks in public' issue in the UK. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1435 https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435/rr-43

"The precautionary principle is conventionally used to advise caution in the uptake of innovations with known benefits but uncertain or unmeasurable downsides.(6,7) Greenhalgh et al. take the opposite approach: that action is imperative because the risks are minimal and the potential benefits great."

--2A02:C7F:48DA:6F00:24A2:CA3A:6293:F530 (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)