1 00:00:00,330 --> 00:00:09,990 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. 2 00:00:09,990 --> 00:00:19,200 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. 3 00:00:19,200 --> 00:00:22,950 So the idea is that it's immoral because it's too risky. 4 00:00:22,950 --> 00:00:31,470 And I notice I've left an apostrophe off this end here, which you should never do, of course. 5 00:00:31,470 --> 00:00:41,700 Okay. Recently in Europe especially, the community has been changing its attitude towards risk assessment from traditional risk assessment. 6 00:00:41,700 --> 00:00:48,210 And I'll say something about what that is in a minute to a more precautionary risk assessment. 7 00:00:48,210 --> 00:00:57,000 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. 8 00:00:57,000 --> 00:01:02,790 This was in the 1970s and the finger was pointed at acid rain, 9 00:01:02,790 --> 00:01:14,100 which was rain that contains toxins that the power stations were belching out and the rain was coming down through this and becoming acid. 10 00:01:14,100 --> 00:01:21,930 And there was no scientifically respectable evidence that it was actually acid rain that was causing the death of the forests. 11 00:01:21,930 --> 00:01:31,140 But the German government nevertheless imposed restrictions on power plant emissions, and they did that on the basis of that word. 12 00:01:31,140 --> 00:01:35,880 I am afraid I can't pronounce or the principle of for caring. 13 00:01:35,880 --> 00:01:40,680 And this was the predecessor of the so-called precautionary principle that we're going 14 00:01:40,680 --> 00:01:46,260 to be discussing today and a popular formulation of the precautionary principle. 15 00:01:46,260 --> 00:02:00,120 Is this the Wingspread statement? I'll leave you to read that. 16 00:02:00,120 --> 00:02:05,940 One of the first things that people often say about this is that it's very vague. 17 00:02:05,940 --> 00:02:13,670 What do they mean when an activity raises threats of harm? What sort of threat of harm to the environment or to human health? 18 00:02:13,670 --> 00:02:18,330 Well, what does that mean? Which to one or the other? Or does it matter? 19 00:02:18,330 --> 00:02:20,730 Precautionary measures should be taken. 20 00:02:20,730 --> 00:02:28,590 Well, again, what's a precautionary measure, even if some cause and effect relationship hasn't been established scientifically? 21 00:02:28,590 --> 00:02:38,460 Well, again, what does it mean? What sort of cause and effect relationship? But, um, are just just looking at that. 22 00:02:38,460 --> 00:02:45,120 You shouldn't ever worry too much when you get a query about vagueness and this sort of level, 23 00:02:45,120 --> 00:02:49,200 because actually if you think of almost any moral principle, 24 00:02:49,200 --> 00:02:56,610 you're going to get vagueness until you've got a context in which the principle is being used. 25 00:02:56,610 --> 00:03:02,310 So do is you should be done by as you would be done by, for example, is a moral principle. 26 00:03:02,310 --> 00:03:05,820 And if you just leave it like that, it's very vague, isn't it? 27 00:03:05,820 --> 00:03:13,440 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. 28 00:03:13,440 --> 00:03:18,150 And exactly the same thing is true of, for example, the Kantian statement. 29 00:03:18,150 --> 00:03:23,220 Don't use another person as a tool, only as a tool. 30 00:03:23,220 --> 00:03:28,440 Well, again, what does this mean? Answer. You only know when you put it in a context. 31 00:03:28,440 --> 00:03:35,070 So the fact that the precautionary principle is vague when it's not in a context doesn't 32 00:03:35,070 --> 00:03:42,660 mean that within a context it isn't a perfectly useful and practical principle. 33 00:03:42,660 --> 00:03:49,170 So the key differences between the precautionary principle and traditional risk assessment are firstly, 34 00:03:49,170 --> 00:03:56,830 there's a shift in the burden of proof from the opposite of an innovation to the innovator itself. 35 00:03:56,830 --> 00:04:08,790 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, 36 00:04:08,790 --> 00:04:15,240 no, this is too risky and they need to show. So, for example, in the case of thalidomide, 37 00:04:15,240 --> 00:04:22,170 it was up to there was a particular doctor whose name I sadly can't remember who upon 38 00:04:22,170 --> 00:04:27,600 whom the owners fell to show that there was something very badly wrong with thalidomide. 39 00:04:27,600 --> 00:04:37,920 And in the precautionary principle, if any member of the public or any number of member of the public think there's something wrong, 40 00:04:37,920 --> 00:04:42,960 then the burden, burden of proof is on the person who's innovating. 41 00:04:42,960 --> 00:04:47,940 And there's also a weakening of reliance on scientific risk assessment. 42 00:04:47,940 --> 00:04:53,370 And both of these have been seen as strengths for the precautionary principle. 43 00:04:53,370 --> 00:05:00,840 So those wanting an innovation are often big pharmaceutical companies or other powerful corporations. 44 00:05:00,840 --> 00:05:05,010 They have a lot of money. They have a lot of clout. 45 00:05:05,010 --> 00:05:14,550 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? 46 00:05:14,550 --> 00:05:22,440 And so if the precautionary principle shifts the burden of proof from the members of 47 00:05:22,440 --> 00:05:28,410 the public or protest groups onto big pharmaceuticals and other big corporations, 48 00:05:28,410 --> 00:05:38,430 some people have seen that as a strength. And in the same way, the idea that it's no longer science, 49 00:05:38,430 --> 00:05:46,110 who has the final say on whether or something is or isn't risky has also been thought to be a strength. 50 00:05:46,110 --> 00:05:53,430 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. 51 00:05:53,430 --> 00:06:01,770 Thalidomide, we all know the disaster that happened with thalidomide tgen one for one to six very fit 52 00:06:01,770 --> 00:06:10,500 young men were used as guinea pigs and they all suffered a complete organ shutdown. 53 00:06:10,500 --> 00:06:16,830 They were in a really bad way. They have all survived, but they're not well. 54 00:06:16,830 --> 00:06:23,700 So the idea that science should be in charge of risk assessments has been thought by quite a few people to be wanting. 55 00:06:23,700 --> 00:06:32,790 And so X-rays and radioactivity, for example, were discovered in 1895 and radium in 1898. 56 00:06:32,790 --> 00:06:36,660 And very early on there were disquieting signs. 57 00:06:36,660 --> 00:06:45,840 So in 1896, Thomas Edison's assistant died after having to have his arm amputated due to radio dermatitis. 58 00:06:45,840 --> 00:06:51,990 Numerous reports of skin burns, loss of hair and young women who applied radioactivity, 59 00:06:51,990 --> 00:06:59,950 activated paint, licked their brushes to sharpen them, and they developed bone lesions and other. 60 00:06:59,950 --> 00:07:05,190 So there is a quite a lot of evidence about the dangers of radium, radioactivity, 61 00:07:05,190 --> 00:07:14,190 and despite these warnings, the scientific community completely embraced radium and radioactivity. 62 00:07:14,190 --> 00:07:18,900 There was a general consensus that x rays caused no harm. 63 00:07:18,900 --> 00:07:26,100 Ill effects were explained away, explained away as the result of static electricity and individual sensitivity. 64 00:07:26,100 --> 00:07:32,550 Early claims, even from scientists, that radiation exposure might have long term ill effects. 65 00:07:32,550 --> 00:07:42,240 For example, effects on the foetus in the womb to utter logical effects were ignored and the reactions of society dismissed as lurid 66 00:07:42,240 --> 00:07:52,860 journalese and scientific incompetence articles by the few reporters that were worried about radioactivity and radium. 67 00:07:52,860 --> 00:07:58,470 So there was a general movement on the part of science to say this is any worries about. 68 00:07:58,470 --> 00:08:04,800 This is just sheer power mongering, power fear mongering. 69 00:08:04,800 --> 00:08:10,200 And the public who trusted scientists and doctors started to look on radiation as health giving. 70 00:08:10,200 --> 00:08:19,800 So radium was used in toothpaste, hair cream, health products said to cure things from stomach ulcers to impotence. 71 00:08:19,800 --> 00:08:22,710 I don't know. Looking at the ages of my audience, 72 00:08:22,710 --> 00:08:32,580 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. 73 00:08:32,580 --> 00:08:41,700 Actually, it was just there to amuse children. But we were having quite our feet were being x rayed for fun. 74 00:08:41,700 --> 00:08:52,050 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. 75 00:08:52,050 --> 00:08:57,600 And it was only after the Second World War that people started to call for proper regulation. 76 00:08:57,600 --> 00:09:03,060 And there's some reasons for why we started to call for it. 77 00:09:03,060 --> 00:09:08,370 So sometimes putting our faith in science hasn't worked. 78 00:09:08,370 --> 00:09:15,390 There's a reason for thinking that maybe risk assessment shouldn't be left to science. 79 00:09:15,390 --> 00:09:18,780 And anyway, we might say, isn't it better to be safe than sorry? 80 00:09:18,780 --> 00:09:25,020 Shouldn't we apply the precautionary principle just because we want to be safe rather than sorry? 81 00:09:25,020 --> 00:09:29,010 But on the other hand, we've got to think, well, hang on a second. 82 00:09:29,010 --> 00:09:35,430 What if the precautionary principle had been around when fire was discovered? 83 00:09:35,430 --> 00:09:43,140 And would the precautionary principle of allowed fire to go ahead or would fire have seemed just a bit too risky? 84 00:09:43,140 --> 00:09:46,140 What about the wheel? Another one? 85 00:09:46,140 --> 00:09:54,370 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. 86 00:09:54,370 --> 00:10:00,930 And many scientists believe that the precautionary principle stifles innovation. 87 00:10:00,930 --> 00:10:09,240 And so in 2003, spiked online, invited 40 world renowned scientists to respond to this question. 88 00:10:09,240 --> 00:10:12,870 And I'll read it out. What are the most notable scientific, 89 00:10:12,870 --> 00:10:18,360 medical or technical or technological discoveries and achievements that you believe would have 90 00:10:18,360 --> 00:10:25,380 been limited or prevented if science at the time had been governed by the precautionary principle, 91 00:10:25,380 --> 00:10:31,560 please list one or more. So forty scientists were asked to respond to that question. 92 00:10:31,560 --> 00:10:34,780 And here's the list they came up with. 93 00:10:34,780 --> 00:10:42,880 And I'll just read out a few of them, it's an alphabetical list, starting with the aeroplane, antibiotics, aspirin, 94 00:10:42,880 --> 00:10:54,340 going through the bicycle through fire, gas, power, knives, the measles vaccine, quantum mechanics right the way through to X-rays. 95 00:10:54,340 --> 00:11:01,090 So there are huge number of innovations that scientists believed would never have got off the 96 00:11:01,090 --> 00:11:09,130 ground if the precautionary principle had been in vogue when they were introduced in the US. 97 00:11:09,130 --> 00:11:15,640 People are very worried about the precautions, worried about the precautionary principle, because they believe it's a risk to free enterprise. 98 00:11:15,640 --> 00:11:21,010 They think it's going to stifle innovation in all sorts of ways. 99 00:11:21,010 --> 00:11:25,510 So the argument it's too risky is a live one. 100 00:11:25,510 --> 00:11:38,330 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? 101 00:11:38,330 --> 00:11:43,560 And I'll leave you there worrying about it.