Talk:Precautionary principle

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Precautionary principle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 21 days

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

European Union Mid‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Medicine High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

"Web page potpourri". Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. January, 2004. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
David Hardman (2009). "Judgment and decision making: psychological perspectives". Wiley-Blackwell.

sources i have been looking at

Things have evolved a lot in the past ten years on the ground, especially between the US and EU with regard to PP/risk assessment. A lot of blending, from both sides. A lot of this article is based on 15 year old ideas.

PMID 22430837 (review)
PMID 21332494 (review)
PMID 20850572 (review)
2013 article that has some very good review parts (need to use those and avoid the [[WP:PRIMARY[[ aspects: http://www.hunton.com/files/Publication/7aeacc21-e8c1-41d6-a6be-30800f21afb6/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/bd8ef806-a952-4da6-9e7d-bc6c070d95e7/Trade_the_Precautionary_Principle_and_Post-Modern_Regulatory_Process.pdf
2013 paper - unfortunately cannot cite this but very useful http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/rpp/J-Wiener_Reg__Gov.pdf
2010 book http://books.google.com/books?id=YbmywR22OuwC&dq
2007 - about as old as we should go - this too is mixed secondary/primary: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=wmelpr
2007 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1007404

"Fields typically concerned by the precautionary principle are the possibility of:"

"Fields typically concerned by the precautionary principle are the possibility of:" - what does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.165.103 (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add on the notes about the precautionary principle Yiga uthman (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

disputed?

It seems to me that very few surviving scientist dispute the precautionary principle. Can I mail you a package with instructions on how to mix them to keep yourself warm. Will you just follow my instructions without taking precautions? Clearly specifically when to use the precautionary principle is up to discussion but are there really that many rational people who dispute it's utility?

Biofuel (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about a common sense "precaution", which you are trying to exemplify here. The article discusses a complex and far-fetching epistemological, philosophical and legal construct and from even brief scan of the article's contents it should be clear that every single aspect of the principle is disputed. There is no single accepted definition - there are at least 14 of them, differing in how far they go, from general, common-sense recommendation to be careful (which is criticised as truism) to "all new technology is suspected until proven safe". The latter is criticised as extreme and self-excluding as you can't "prove" safety of something you can't research. Furthermore, there's no consensus on scope of applicability, legal definition, there's no consensus literally on anything related to the principle. And majority of the criticism originates specifically from the scientific community who was most severely impacted by broad bans on research in fields such as genetic engineering, which was targeted in spite of lack of any scientific evidence of danger, or even presence of evidence showing lack of danger, but still using "precaution" as a pretext. Cloud200 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is disputed. Of you apply the precautionary principal to itself - you can't use it - it forbids it's own use. The fallacy come from the reality that not doing something can also cause unforeseeable harm as well.

There is an old maxim that addresses this - precautionary principal implies prediction.

Those who have knowledge don't predict. Those who predict don't have knowledge -- Lao Tzu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it apply when the change is 'acting to prevent harm', or just when the change is 'acting to gain benefit'?

This is a 'guidelines to wear face-masks in public' issue in the UK. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1435 https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435/rr-43

"The precautionary principle is conventionally used to advise caution in the uptake of innovations with known benefits but uncertain or unmeasurable downsides.(6,7) Greenhalgh et al. take the opposite approach: that action is imperative because the risks are minimal and the potential benefits great."

--2A02:C7F:48DA:6F00:24A2:CA3A:6293:F530 (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]