In this paper we propose a typology of three interpretations of the precautionary principle, each with its associated philosophical and policy implications. We found that these different interpretations of precaution are closely related to variations in the understanding of scientific uncertainty, as well as varying ways of assessing possible (but uncertain) impacts of scientific–technological development. There is a direct link to the question of what scientific knowledge is and what role it plays in regulation and decision-making. The proposed typology permits a conceptual systematization of the current controversies related to the precautionary principle, while facilitating understanding of some of the deeper roots of science and technology policy debates.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2006) Public Health Assessment Guide Manual. Atlanta, GA: ATSDR.
2.
AshfordNA (2005) Incorporating science, technology, fairness, and accountability in environmental, health, and safety decisions. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment11: 85–96.
3.
AshfordNA (2007) The legacy of the precautionary principle in US law: The rise of cost–benefit analysis and risk assessment as undermining factors in health, safety and environmental protection. In: de SadeleerN (ed.) Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA. London: Earthscan, 352–378.
4.
CranorC (1995) The social benefits of expedited risk assessment. Risk Analysis15: 353–358.
5.
CranorC (2003a) Some legal implications of the Precautionary Principle: Improving information – generation and legal protection. European Journal of Oncology Library2: 31–51.
6.
CranorC (2003b) What could precautionary science be? Research for early warnings and a better future. In: TicknerJA (ed.) Precaution, Environmental Science, and Preventive Public Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press, 305–319.
7.
De SadeleerN (ed.) (2007a) Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA. London: Earthscan.
8.
De SadeleerN (2007b) The Precautionary Principle in European Community health and environment law: Sword or shield for the Nordic countries? In: de SadeleerN (ed.) Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Approaches from the Nordic countries, EU and USA. London: Earthscan, 10–58.
9.
DouglasH (2000) Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science67: 559–579.
10.
European Commission (2000) Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle, COM 1 (2000). Brussels: EC.
11.
European Commission (2001) Council Directive 2001/18/EC (12/3/2001) on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. Official Journal of the European CommunitiesL106, 17/4/2001.
12.
European Commission (2006) Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18/12/2006, concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. Official Journal of the European CommunitiesL136: 3–280.
13.
FisherEJonesJvon SchombergR (2006) Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and prospects. In: FisherEJonesJvon SchombergR (eds) Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 19–42.
14.
FosterKRVecchiaPRepacholiMH (2000) Science and the Precautionary Principle. Science288: 979–981.
15.
GoklanyIM (2001) The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
16.
HaackS (2008) Proving causation: The holism of warrant and the atomism of Daubert. Journal of Health & Biomedical Law4: 253–289.
17.
HansenFAvon KraussKMPTicknerJA (2007) Categorizing mistaken false positives in regulation of human and environmental health. Risk Analysis27: 255–269.
18.
HarremoësPGeeDMacGarvinMStirlingAKeysJWynneBVazSG (eds) (2002) The Precautionary Principle in the 20th Century: Late Lessons from Early Warnings. London: Earthscan.
19.
HeimannCFL (1997) Acceptable Risks: Politics, Policy, and Risky Technologies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
KlinkeADreyerMRennOStirlingOvan ZwanenbergP (2006) Precautionary risk regulation in European governance. Journal of Risk Research9: 373–392.
22.
KochLAshfordNA (2006) Rethinking the role of information in chemicals policy: Implications for TSCA and REACH. Journal of Cleaner Production14: 31–46.
23.
KriebelDTicknerJEpsteinPLemonsPLevinsRLoechlerEL. (2001) The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental Health Perspectives109: 871–876.
24.
KrimskyS (2005) The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law. American Journal of Public Health95: S129–S136.
25.
LevidowLCarrS (eds) (2000) Special issue: Precautionary regulation – GM crops in the European Union. Journal of Risk Research3(3): 187–285.
26.
LujánJLTodtO (2007) Precaution in public: The social perception of the role of science and values in policy making. Public Understanding of Science16: 97–109.
27.
MorenoCTodtOLujánJL (2010) The context(s) of precaution: Ideological and instrumental appeals to the precautionary principle. Science Communication32: 76–92.
28.
MurphyJLevidowJCarrS (2006) Regulatory standard for environmental risks. Social Studies of Science36: 133–160.
29.
O’BrienM (1999) Alternatives assessment: Part of operationalizing and institutionalizing the precautionary principle. In: RaffenspergerCTicknerJA (eds) Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington, DC: Island Press, 207–219.
30.
O’BrienM (2003) Science in the service of good: The Precautionary Principle and positive goals. In: TicknerJA (ed.) Environmental Science and Preventive Public Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press, 279–297.
31.
O’RiordanTCameronJ (1994) History and contemporary significance of the precautionary principle. In: O’RiordanTCameronJ (eds) Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: Earthscan, 12–31.
32.
PerrowC (1984) Normal Accidents. New York: Basic Books/ Harper Collins.
33.
PetersonM (2007) Should the precautionary principle guide our actions or our beliefs?Journal of Medical Ethics33: 5–10.
34.
RaffenspergerCTicknerJ (eds) (1999) Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington, DC: Island Press.
35.
RavetzJ (1997) The science of ‘what-if’. Futures29: 533–539.
36.
RennO (2007) Precaution and analysis: Two sides of the same coin?EMBO Reports8: 303–304.
37.
RennOElliottD (2011) Chemicals. In: WienerJBRogersMDHammittJKSandPH (eds) The Reality of Precaution: Comparing Risk Regulations in the United States and Europe. London: Earthscan, 223–257.
38.
ResnikDB (2003) Is the precautionary principle unscientific?Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences34: 329–344.
RudénCHanssonSO (2010) Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) is but a first step – How far will it take us? Six further steps to improve the European chemicals legislation. Environmental Health Perspectives118(1): 6–10.
41.
SandinP (1999) Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment5: 889–907.
42.
SandinP (2007) Common-sense precaution and varieties of the precautionary principle. In: LewensT (ed.) Risk: Philosophical Perspective. London: Routledge, 99–113.
43.
SandinPPetersonMHanssonSORudénCJutheA (2002) Five charges against the precautionary principle. Journal of Risk Research5: 287–299.
44.
SantilloDJohnstonPStringerR (1999) The precautionary principle in practice: A mandate for anticipatory preventive action. In: RaffenspergerCTicknerJA (eds) Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington, DC: Island Press, 36–50.
45.
SchaafsmaGKroeseEDTielemansELJPVan de SandtJJMVan LeeuwenK (2009) REACH, non-testing approaches and the urgent need for a change in mind set. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology53: 70–80.
46.
Shrader-FrechetteK (1989) Scientific progress and models of justification. In: GoldmanS (ed.) Science, Technology, and Social Progress. London: Associated University Presses,196–226.
47.
Shrader-FrechetteK (2001) Radiobiological hormesis, methodological value judgments, and metascience. Perspectives on Science8: 367–379.
48.
Shrader-FrechetteK (2004) Using metascience to improve dose–response curves in biology: Better policy through better science. Philosophy of Science71: 1026–1037.
49.
StirlingA (1999) On Science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk: Vol. 1. Brussels: EC Joint Research Center.
50.
StirlingA (2007) Risk, precaution and science: Towards a more constructive policy debate. EMBO Reports8: 309–315.
51.
SunsteinC (2002) Risk and Reason: Safety, Law and the Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
SunsteinC (2005) Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
TicknerJA (2003) Precautionary assessment: A framework for integrating science, uncertainty, and preventive public policy. In: TicknerJA (ed.) Precaution, Environmental Science, and Preventive Public Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press, 265–278.
54.
TicknerJA (2008) Assessment and prioritization of chemicals: Policy options for states and the federal government. In: Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, Options for State Chemicals Policy Reform: A Resource Guide. Lowell: Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, 97–129.
55.
TicknerJAKriebelDWrightS (2003) A compass for health: Rethinking precaution and its role in science and public health. International Journal of Epidemiology32: 489–492.
56.
TodtOLujánJL (2008) A new social contract for technology? On the policy dynamics of uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research11: 509–523.
57.
TodtORodríguez AlcázarJLujánJL (2010) Practical values and uncertainty in regulatory decision-making. Social Epistemology24: 349–362.
58.
Von SchombergR (2006) The precautionary principle and its normative challenges. In: FisherEJonesJvon SchombergR (eds) Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 19–42.
59.
WandallB (2004) Values in science and risk assessment. Toxicology Letters152: 265–272.
60.
WeissC (2003) Scientific uncertainty and science-based precaution. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Laws and Economics3: 137–166.
61.
WhitesideKH (2006) Precautionary Politics: Principle and Practice in Confronting Environmental Risk. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62.
WildavskyA (2000) Trial and error versus trial without error. In: MorrisJ (ed.) Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 22–45.
63.
WienerJB (2011) The rhetoric of precaution. In: WienerJBRogersMDHammittJKSandPH (eds) The Reality of Precaution: Comparing Risk Regulations in the United States and Europe. London: Earthscan, 3–35.
64.
WinterG (2007) Risks, costs and alternatives in European Community environmental legislation: The case of the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH). In: de SadeleerN (ed.) Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA. London: Earthscan, 313–329.
65.
WynneB (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventative paradigm. Global Environmental Change2: 111–127.
