Right. Well, welcome to the series of mini podcasts and welcome to everybody here and welcome to everybody who's listening or watching on podcast.
This is the second in the series of common arguments. So in this podcast, we're going to be looking at the argument it's too risky.
So the idea is that it's immoral because it's too risky.
And I notice I've left an apostrophe off this end here, which you should never do, of course.
Okay. Recently in Europe especially, the community has been changing its attitude towards risk assessment from traditional risk assessment.
And I'll say something about what that is in a minute to a more precautionary risk assessment.
And I'll also say what that is. The traditional model of risk assessments came under scrutiny when Germany's famous forests started to die.
This was in the 1970s and the finger was pointed at acid rain,
which was rain that contains toxins that the power stations were belching out and the rain was coming down through this and becoming acid.
And there was no scientifically respectable evidence that it was actually acid rain that was causing the death of the forests.
But the German government nevertheless imposed restrictions on power plant emissions, and they did that on the basis of that word.
I am afraid I can't pronounce or the principle of for caring.
And this was the predecessor of the so-called precautionary principle that we're going
to be discussing today and a popular formulation of the precautionary principle.
Is this the Wingspread statement? I'll leave you to read that.
One of the first things that people often say about this is that it's very vague.
What do they mean when an activity raises threats of harm? What sort of threat of harm to the environment or to human health?
Well, what does that mean? Which to one or the other? Or does it matter?
Precautionary measures should be taken.
Well, again, what's a precautionary measure, even if some cause and effect relationship hasn't been established scientifically?
Well, again, what does it mean? What sort of cause and effect relationship? But, um, are just just looking at that.
You shouldn't ever worry too much when you get a query about vagueness and this sort of level,
because actually if you think of almost any moral principle,
you're going to get vagueness until you've got a context in which the principle is being used.
So do is you should be done by as you would be done by, for example, is a moral principle.
And if you just leave it like that, it's very vague, isn't it?
Do is you would be done by what you mean. But actually if you use it in in a context, then you know exactly what it means.
And exactly the same thing is true of, for example, the Kantian statement.
Don't use another person as a tool, only as a tool.
Well, again, what does this mean? Answer. You only know when you put it in a context.
So the fact that the precautionary principle is vague when it's not in a context doesn't
mean that within a context it isn't a perfectly useful and practical principle.
So the key differences between the precautionary principle and traditional risk assessment are firstly,
there's a shift in the burden of proof from the opposite of an innovation to the innovator itself.
So whereas in traditional risk assessment and science proposes the innovation and it's up to a member of the public or somebody else to say,
no, this is too risky and they need to show. So, for example, in the case of thalidomide,
it was up to there was a particular doctor whose name I sadly can't remember who upon
whom the owners fell to show that there was something very badly wrong with thalidomide.
And in the precautionary principle, if any member of the public or any number of member of the public think there's something wrong,
then the burden, burden of proof is on the person who's innovating.
And there's also a weakening of reliance on scientific risk assessment.
And both of these have been seen as strengths for the precautionary principle.
So those wanting an innovation are often big pharmaceutical companies or other powerful corporations.
They have a lot of money. They have a lot of clout.
Why should the onus be on the member of the public or a protest group as opposed to on a big pharmaceutical or a big corporation?
And so if the precautionary principle shifts the burden of proof from the members of
the public or protest groups onto big pharmaceuticals and other big corporations,
some people have seen that as a strength. And in the same way, the idea that it's no longer science,
who has the final say on whether or something is or isn't risky has also been thought to be a strength.
After all, science hasn't always been right. Radium, radioactivity, it was often wrong and will say a bit more about that in a minute.
Thalidomide, we all know the disaster that happened with thalidomide tgen one for one to six very fit
young men were used as guinea pigs and they all suffered a complete organ shutdown.
They were in a really bad way. They have all survived, but they're not well.
So the idea that science should be in charge of risk assessments has been thought by quite a few people to be wanting.
And so X-rays and radioactivity, for example, were discovered in 1895 and radium in 1898.
And very early on there were disquieting signs.
So in 1896, Thomas Edison's assistant died after having to have his arm amputated due to radio dermatitis.
Numerous reports of skin burns, loss of hair and young women who applied radioactivity,
activated paint, licked their brushes to sharpen them, and they developed bone lesions and other.
So there is a quite a lot of evidence about the dangers of radium, radioactivity,
and despite these warnings, the scientific community completely embraced radium and radioactivity.
There was a general consensus that x rays caused no harm.
Ill effects were explained away, explained away as the result of static electricity and individual sensitivity.
Early claims, even from scientists, that radiation exposure might have long term ill effects.
For example, effects on the foetus in the womb to utter logical effects were ignored and the reactions of society dismissed as lurid
journalese and scientific incompetence articles by the few reporters that were worried about radioactivity and radium.
So there was a general movement on the part of science to say this is any worries about.
This is just sheer power mongering, power fear mongering.
And the public who trusted scientists and doctors started to look on radiation as health giving.
So radium was used in toothpaste, hair cream, health products said to cure things from stomach ulcers to impotence.
I don't know. Looking at the ages of my audience,
I suspect that there may be others like me who had their foot x rayed feet x rayed in shoe shops, which did no good.
Actually, it was just there to amuse children. But we were having quite our feet were being x rayed for fun.
An x rays were also used to treat ringworm and to remove unwanted hair and beauty salons, all because science said there is no fear from x rays.
And it was only after the Second World War that people started to call for proper regulation.
And there's some reasons for why we started to call for it.
So sometimes putting our faith in science hasn't worked.
There's a reason for thinking that maybe risk assessment shouldn't be left to science.
And anyway, we might say, isn't it better to be safe than sorry?
Shouldn't we apply the precautionary principle just because we want to be safe rather than sorry?
But on the other hand, we've got to think, well, hang on a second.
What if the precautionary principle had been around when fire was discovered?
And would the precautionary principle of allowed fire to go ahead or would fire have seemed just a bit too risky?
What about the wheel? Another one?
Lots of people die because the wheel perhaps if it had been too worried about people dying, the wheel would never have got off the ground.
And many scientists believe that the precautionary principle stifles innovation.
And so in 2003, spiked online, invited 40 world renowned scientists to respond to this question.
And I'll read it out. What are the most notable scientific,
medical or technical or technological discoveries and achievements that you believe would have
been limited or prevented if science at the time had been governed by the precautionary principle,
please list one or more. So forty scientists were asked to respond to that question.
And here's the list they came up with.
And I'll just read out a few of them, it's an alphabetical list, starting with the aeroplane, antibiotics, aspirin,
going through the bicycle through fire, gas, power, knives, the measles vaccine, quantum mechanics right the way through to X-rays.
So there are huge number of innovations that scientists believed would never have got off the
ground if the precautionary principle had been in vogue when they were introduced in the US.
People are very worried about the precautions, worried about the precautionary principle, because they believe it's a risk to free enterprise.
They think it's going to stifle innovation in all sorts of ways.
So the argument it's too risky is a live one.
It's a really important one. Should we rely on science to assess risks or our scientists to focus on innovation, to worry about risk?
And I'll leave you there worrying about it.