Precaution, threshold risk and public deliberation

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 mak...

Полное описание

Сохранить в:  
Библиографические подробности
Главный автор: Holm, Sune (Автор)
Другие авторы: Wareham, Christopher (библиографическое прошлое)
Формат: Электронный ресурс Статья
Язык:Английский
Проверить наличие: HBZ Gateway
Interlibrary Loan:Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany)
Опубликовано: [2019]
В: Bioethics
Год: 2019, Том: 33, Выпуск: 2, Страницы: 254-260
Индексация IxTheo:NCD Политическая этика
NCH Медицинская этика
Другие ключевые слова:B Ethics
B precautionary regulation
B Precautionary Principle
B Risk
B public deliberation
Online-ссылка: Volltext (Publisher)
Volltext (doi)
Описание
Итог: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.
ISSN:1467-8519
Reference:Kritik von "Policy on Synthetic Biology (2015)"
Второстепенные работы:Enthalten in: Bioethics
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12488