The precautionary principle states that we should take action now in order to avoid any possible catastrophes or damage that may occur due to a lack of satisfying scientific evidence. While searching the internet regarding this topic I have found that there are many people who oppose the principle because they say it goes too far. People oppose it because in the "most recent application of the doctrine it is proposed that innovation should be prevented even when there is just a perception of a risk among some unspecified people." This infuriates many because it only takes a small number of people claiming something could be harmful and backing that claim up with no further evidence to bring innovation to a halt. The burden of proof is left to the innovators to prove beyond reasonable doubt that something is not harmful. Proponents of the principle believe that we should always assume something to be dangerous or harmful until it has been definitively proven otherwise.
In the 1900's paint was being recognized as a leading cause for lead poisoning in children living in Australia. Despite this finding lead was not banned in the United States until over 70 years later. The ramifications of the failure to act have resulted in learning deficiencies and behavioral problems in people. The current annual cost to treat lead poisoning in children is over $54 Billion.
There are countless examples where the precautionary principle was not applied and as a result the lives of people are affected. As humans I believe that it is our obligation to prevent harm to others by making sound and safe decisions. Yes, using the principle may mean a slow-down in innovation, however it may save us from finding mistakes in the future and its always better to be safe than sorry.
1 comment:
I have a tendency to agree with both sides of the arguement on this issue. Being safer in the now and slowing down with different innovations is definately a positive thing. After seeing specials from PBS and the History Channel, there are so many inventions that got patents but never came to fruitition because of their danger or high risk factor for human or environmental life. It is important to weigh all the options before making a decision that could drastically change the way humans live. On the other hand, some things need to be hurried in order to help save humans or the Earth. When it comes to healthcare, I want scientists to take their time on vaccines or machinery, but at the sime time, it may become necessary to release it early to help the general public. Take the polio vaccine for example. It was not entirely ready for human use when an outbreak occurred in the U.S in the 1950s. Scientists continued testing the vaccines that they did have in progress, yet at a faster rate and released it to the public after only being tested on a marginal number of humans. This was needed and it saved a countless number of lives. I think the precautionary principle needs to be taken in context before it can be ruled out of an arguement.
Post a Comment