Precaution, threshold risk and public deliberation

Bioethics 33 (2):254-260 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It has been argued that the precautionary principle is incoherent and thus useless as a guide for regulatory policy. In a recent paper in Bioethics, Wareham and Nardini propose a response to the ‘precautionary paradox’ according to which the precautionary principle's usefulness for decision making in policy and regulation contexts can be justified by appeal to a probability threshold discriminating between negligible and non‐negligible risks. It would be of great significance to debates about risk and precaution if there were a sound method for determining a minimum probability threshold of negligible risk. This is what Wareham and Nardini aim to do. The novelty of their approach is that they suggest that such a threshold should be determined by a method of public deliberation. In this article I discuss the merits of Wareham and Nardini’s public deliberation method for determining thresholds. I raise an epistemic worry about the public deliberation method they suggest, and argue that their proposal is inadequate due to a hidden assumption that the acceptability of a risk can be completely analysed in terms of its probability.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Risk, Precaution, and Emerging Technologies.Fritz Allhoff - 2009 - Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 3 (2).
“Conflict over risks in food production: A challenge for democracy”. [REVIEW]Karsten Klint Jensen - 2006 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (3):269-283.
Precaution has its reasons.Mariam Thalos - 2012 - In W. Kabasenche, M. O'Rourke & M. Slater (eds.), Topics in Contemporary Philosophy 9: The Environment, Philosophy, Science and Ethics. MIT Press. pp. 171–184.
A Right against Risk-Imposition and the Problem of Paralysis.Sune Holm - 2016 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (4):917-930.
Negligence.Kenneth W. Simons - 1999 - Social Philosophy and Policy 16 (2):52-93.
Worldwide deliberation and public use of reason online.May Thorseth - 2006 - Ethics and Information Technology 8 (4):243-252.
Risk and Precaution.Stephen John - forthcoming - Public Health Ethics: Key Concepts and Issues in Policy and Practice:67--84.
Prudent Precaution in Clinical Trials of Nanomedicines.Gary E. Marchant & Rachel A. Lindor - 2012 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (4):831-840.
Qu'est-ce que le principe de précaution?Denis Grison - 2012 - Librairie Philosophique Vrin.
Public justification versus public deliberation: the case for divorce.Kevin Vallier - 2015 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 45 (2):139-158.
Technological risk and small probabilities.Kristin Shrader-Frechette - 1985 - Journal of Business Ethics 4 (6):431 - 445.
The ethics of truth-telling and the problem of risk.Paul B. Thompson - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (4):489-510.
The Principle of Precaution and the Governance of Insecurity.Guido Gorgoni - forthcoming - Governare la Paura. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-08-21

Downloads
34 (#407,230)

6 months
2 (#668,348)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Sune Holm
University of Copenhagen