Abstract
Critics of the precautionary principle assail it for calling for action before science establishes unquestionably that a substance causes harm. They claim theirs is the viewpoint of the “scientific method.” But the conflict is not between science and antiscience but rather between different pathways for science and technology; between a commodified science-for-profit and a gentle science for humane goals; between the sciences of the smallest parts and the sciences of dynamic wholes. This article addresses the social construction of scientific production and the pattern of strengths and weaknesses to which it leads. The author offers proposals for a more holistic, integral approach to understanding and addressing environmental issues.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.