How Not to Criticize the Precautionary Principle.
The precautionary principle has its origins in debates about environmental policy, but is increasingly invoked in bioethical contexts. John Harris and Søren Holm argue that the principle should be rejected as incoherent, irrational, and representing a fundamental threat to scientific advance and tec...
| Published in: | Journal of Medicine & Philosophy Vol. 31; no. 5; pp. 447 - 465 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press / USA
Oct2006
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=22932958&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 22932958 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 03605310 MPS jtl: Journal of Medicine & Philosophy issn: 03605310 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Oct2006 vid: 31 iid: 5 pid: 622 pub: Oxford University Press / USA artinfo: ui: 22932958 10.1080/03605310600912642 ppf: 447 ppct: 18 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 114KB tig: atl: How Not to Criticize the Precautionary Principle. aug: au: Hughes, Jonathan affil: Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom su: Precautionary principle Professional ethics Environmental law Environmental risk assessment Ethics Risk Science Uncertainty sug: subj: Precautionary principle Professional ethics Environmental law Environmental risk assessment Ethics Risk Science Uncertainty keyword: ethics precautionary principle risk science uncertainty ab: The precautionary principle has its origins in debates about environmental policy, but is increasingly invoked in bioethical contexts. John Harris and Søren Holm argue that the principle should be rejected as incoherent, irrational, and representing a fundamental threat to scientific advance and technological progress. This article argues that while there are problems with standard formulations of the principle, Harris and Holm's rejection of all its forms is mistaken. In particular, they focus on strong versions of the principle and fail to recognize that weaker forms, which may escape their criticisms, are both possible and advocated in the literature. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: © 2019 Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Inc.. item: Journal of Medicine & Philosophy holder: Oxford University Press / USA dt: @attributes: year: 2006 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|