A Continuous Learning Process

A goal-oriented approach presupposes (even more than a harm-oriented one) a con-tinuous learning process, for scientists concerned as well as for citizens and policy people. A goal-oriented approach is characterized by the circular temporality of projected time. Influences between the past and the future go both ways, from the system to the observing and acting members of society and from these members to the system. Because of these mutual interactions, all the predictive work cannot be done at one and only one point of time. The circularity of relations requires that predictions be constantly revised, in order to make consistent updates. The implementation of new technologies involves many uncertainties. A continuous monitoring of effects is, consequently, necessary. Some technological alternatives can prove to be more and others less harmful than initially expected. Or it can turn out that one urgently needs to look for new alternatives. Co-operation from all sides of a society and transparent participatory decision-making processes are needed to implement such learning processes.

This idea of a continuous learning process is at odds with the guiding principles of nondiscrimination and coherence, as suggested by the Commission. However, if the precautionary principle is expected to respond to previously defined soci-etal objectives, changing socisoci-etal concerns and changing scientific information can, indeed, ask for stricter precautionary measures than had been applied in the past in comparable situations.

5.4 Conclusion

Techno-scientific developments in the domain of agro-food technology are evolving rapidly and will possibly have far-reaching transformative powers for the food we will eat in the near future, for agricultural and agro-industrial practices, and for the wider conditions of human existence. Until now, integration of the precautionary principle in European regulatory practices, next to other trials, for instance, to reg-ulate labeling and co-existence, do not seem to suffice to quiet public opinion. In this article, we argue that a more adequate response to public controversies needs a fundamentally different interpretation of the precautionary principle. Precaution should be re-linked to the guiding idea of sustainable development. Precaution is a necessary attitude to allow for sustainable development. This attitude consists of integrated assessments, based on projections of how new technologies will be embedded in societal contexts. These projections – both attractive and repulsive, but in any case credible ones – should function as references for actual decisions.

Both these projections and the integrated assessments should be the subject of an ongoing process that engages the whole society. Defining and organizing this pro-cess, and distributing and defining the responsibilities of various members of society in this process, may look an enormous task. Compared to the revolutionary powers induced by the fast, mainly economically driven techno-scientific developments, it is, perhaps, the only suitable response.

References

Arcuri A (2007) Reconstructing precaution, deconstructing misconceptions. Ethics Int Aff 21(3):359–379

Bodansky D (1991) Scientific uncertainty and the precautionary principle. Environment 33:43–44 Boehmer-Christiansen S (1994) The precautionary principle in Germany – Enabling government.

In: O’Riordan T, Cameron J (eds) Interpreting the precautionary principle. Earthscan, London, pp. 31–60

Calman K, Smith D (2001) Works in theory but not in practice? The role of the precautionary principle in Public Health Policy. Public Admin 79:185–204

Carr S (2002) Ethical and value-based aspects of the European Commission’s precautionary principle. J Agric Environ Ethics 15:31–38

COGEM (2003) Naar een integraal ethisch-maatschappelijk toetsingskader voor moderne biotech-nologie.

COM (2000) Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle

Deblonde M, du-Jardin P (2005) Deepening a precautionary European policy. J Agric Environ Ethics 18:319–343

Deblonde M, Van Oudheusden M, Evers J, Goorden L (2008) Co-creating nano-imaginaries:

Report of a Delphi-Exercise. Bull Sci Technol Soc 28:372–389

DeKay ML, Small MJ, Fischbeck PS, Farrow RS, Cullen A, Kadane JB, Lave LB, Morgan MG, Takemura K (2002) Risk-based decision analysis in support of precautionary policies. J Risk Res 5:391–417

Devos Y, Maeseele P, Reheul D, Van Speybroeck L, Dewaele D (2007) Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: A (re)quest for sense and sensibility. J Agric Environ Ethics 20:33–39

Dovers SR, Handmer JW (1995) Ignorance, the precautionary principle, and sustainability. Ambio 24:92–97

Dupuy J-P, Grinbaum A (2006) Living with uncertainty: Toward an ongoing normative assessment of nanotechnology. In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges. Implications for philosophy, ethics, society. World Scientific, Singapore

Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Corchero C, Fischler C, Hampel J, Jackson J, Kronberger N, Mejlgaard N, Revuelta G, Schreiner C, Torgersen H, Wagner W (2006) Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends

Goorden L (2003) Finding a balance between technological innovation and deliberation. Lessons from Belgian Public Forums on biotechnology. In: Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Philadelphia, USA

Haag D, Kaupenjohann M (2001) Parameters, prediction, post-normal science and the precaution-ary principle – A roadmap for modeling for decision-making. Ecol Model 144:45–60 Harremöes P, Gee D, Macgarvin M, Stirling A, Keys J, Wynne B, Guedes Vaz S (2002) The

precautionary principle in the 20th century. Late lessons from early warnings. Earthscan, London

Henry C, Henry M (2003) L’essence du principe de précaution: la science incertaine mais néanmoins fiable.

Jensen KK (2002) The moral foundation of the precautionary principle. J Agric Environ Ethics 15:39–55

Jonas H (1984) The imperative of responsibility. In search of an ethics for the technological age.

University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Karlsson M (2003) Biosafety principles for GMOs in the context of sustainable development. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 10:15–26

Levidow L (2001) Precautionary uncertainty: Regulating GM crops in Europe. Soc Stud Sci 31:842–874

Löfstedt RE (2004) The swing of the regulatory pendulum in Europe: From precautionary principle to (regulatory) impact analysis. J Risk Uncertain 28:237–260

Löfstedt RE, Fischhoff B, Fischhoff I (2002) Precautionary principles: General definitions and specific applications to genetically modified organisms. J Policy Anal Manage 21:381–407 Marchant GE, Mossman KL (2004) Arbitrary & capricious. The precautionary principle in the

European Union Courts. The AEI Press, Washington, DC

Mayer S, Stirling A (2002) Finding a precautionary approach to technological developments.

Lessons for the evaluation of GM crops. J Agric Environ Ethics 15:57–71

Mitcham C, von Schomberg R (2000) The ethic of scientists and engineers: From occupational role responsibility to public co-responsibility. In: Kroes P, Meijers A (eds) Research in philosophy and technology. JAI Press, Amsterdam [etc.], pp. 167–189

Morris J (2002) The relationship between risk analysis and the precautionary principle. Toxicology 181–182:127–130

O’Brien M (2003) Science in the service of good: The precautionary principle and positive goals.

In: Tickner JA (ed) Precaution, environmental science and preventive public policy. Island Press, Washington/Covelo/London, pp. 279–295

O’Riordan T, Cameron J (1994) Interpreting the precautionary principle. Earthscan, London

O’Riordan T, Jordan A, Cameron J (2001) Reinterpreting the precautionary principle. Cameron May, London

Punie Y, Maghiros I, Delaitre S (2006) Dark scenarios as a constructive tool for future-oriented technology analysis: Safeguards in a world of ambient intelligence (SWAMI), Second International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis. Impact of FTA Approaches on Policy and Decision-Making. Seville

Raffensperger C, deFur L (1999) Implementing the precautionary principle: Rigorous science and solid ethics. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 5:933–941

Ricci PF, Rice D, Ziagos J, Cox LAJ (2003) Precaution, uncertainty and causation in environmental decisions. Environ Int 29:1–19

Rip A (2006) Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Sci Cult 15:349–365

Sandin P (1999) Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 5:889–907 Sandin P, Peterson M, Hansson SO, Ruden C, Juthe A (2002) Five charges against the

precaution-ary principle. J Risk Res 5:287–299

Sandler R (2007) Nanotechnology and social context. Bull Sci Technol Soc 27:446–454 Sarewitz D (2005) This won’t hurt a bit: Assessing and governing rapidly advancing

technolo-gies in a democracy. In: Rodemeyer M, Sarewitz D, Wilsdon J (eds) The future of technology assessment. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC

Starr C (2003) The precautionary principle versus risk analysis. Risk Anal 23:1–3

Stirling A (2008) “Opening up” and “Closing down”: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Hum Values 33:262–294

Tickner JA (2003) Precaution, environmental science and preventive public policy. Island Press, Washington/Covelo/London

Todt O (2004) Regulating agricultural biotechnology under uncertainty. Safety Sci 42:143–158 Treich N (2000) Décision séquentielle et principe de précatuion. Cahiers d’économie et sociologie

rurales 55–56:6–24

Turner D, Hartzell L (2004) The lack of clarity in the precautionary principle. Environ Values 13:449–460

van den Belt H, Gremmen B (2002) Between precautionary principle and ‘sound science’:

Distributing the burdens of proof. J Agric Environ Ethics 15:103–122

von Schomberg R (2007) From the ethics of technology towards an ethics of knowledge policy &

knowledge assessment. European Commission, Brussels

Wilsdon J (2005b) Paddling upstream: New currents in European technology assessment. In:

Rodemeyer M, Sarewitz D, Wilsdon J (eds) The future of technology assessment. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC