Primer Home / Precautionary Principle / Better Safe Than Sorry?

Better Safe Than Sorry?

Topic: Precautionary Principle
by Charlotte, 2020 Cohort

We are surrounded every day by risks, big and small. Should we ride our bike to work and risk a car accident? Should we eat our leftover food, risking a chance of food poisoning? Should we continue life as normal, risking a severe outbreak of COVID-19?

The precautionary principle is essentially risk management. It tells us that when facing a risk of harm, where we are not sure of the outcome we are facing, we should take steps to avoid harm. It stems from a natural instinct to control our uncertain futures.

At its core, the precautionary principle is not an objective standard. It is informed by how risk averse we are, how much evidence we need to be satisfied, and how aptly we can respond to a problem. The easiest justification for when we should follow the guidance of the precautionary principle is when we are not only able to avoid harm, but to achieve a better future for ourselves. When we know the risk, actions, and consequences and still believe we can improve overall utility then we are in a situation almost outside the scope of the precautionary principle.

But what if it isn’t so clear cut? Radicalisation, and exploitation can often happen over the internet. Can we justify giving up our privacy, and granting extensive surveillance powers to our government to mitigate this risk?

The problem is the principle tell that you should act, but it doesn’t tell you how to act. It’s a justification, not a solution. The tipping point varies from to person to person. High risk takers require a large amount of evidence, and irreversible risk of harm, while more cautious actors require less evidence, and less of a risk of harm.

Criticism occurs when the principle is used indiscriminately to advance an agenda, rather than as a specialised problem-solving tool. Rather than listing situations where it could apply (which covers almost every issue), we can try and define more content-neutral criteria about when to use it.

A known unknown is a risk that you understand based on your past experiences. The precautionary principle can be used to engage in a proportionate response. The level of response should be adapted, as much as possible, to the risk of harm.

An unknown unknown is a risk that we cannot anticipate or understand based on our current knowledge. This is where using the precautionary principle can become more contested. We can’t create a proportionate risk management strategy, because we can’t define the risk.

This gives us some more guidance on how to practically use the precautionary principle:

1. Can you define the scope of the problem?
2. Can you effectively target the solution you want?

Ultimately, precaution is important, but it’s worth questioning if our precaution is proportional to the risk we are facing. On one hand, we cannot avoid every risk we will face, and uncertainty is, to an extent, inevitable. On the other, there are some risks too big to ignore.

Explore this topic further#

• Cass Sunstein, 2002-2003, The Paralyzing Principle{.link-ext target=”_blank” }
• How we edit science part 4: how to talk about risk, and words and images not to use{.link-ext target=”_blank” }
• Avoiding a Precautionary Principle for the Internet{.link-ext target=”_blank” }

Return to Precautionary Principle in the Primer

Disclaimer#

This content has been contributed by a student as part of a learning activity.
If there are inaccuracies, or opportunities for significant improvement on this topic, feedback is welcome on how to improve the resource.
You can improve articles on this topic as a student in "Unravelling Complexity", or by including the amendments in an email to: Chris.Browne@anu.edu.au

We are surrounded every day by risks, big and small. Should we ride our bike to work and risk a car accident? Should we eat our leftover food, risking a chance of food poisoning? Should we continue life as normal, risking a severe outbreak of COVID-19?

The precautionary principle is essentially risk management. It tells us that when facing a risk of harm, where we are not sure of the outcome we are facing, we should take steps to avoid harm. It stems from a natural instinct to control our uncertain futures.

At its core, the precautionary principle is not an objective standard. It is informed by how risk averse we are, how much evidence we need to be satisfied, and how aptly we can respond to a problem. The easiest justification for when we should follow the guidance of the precautionary principle is when we are not only able to avoid harm, but to achieve a better future for ourselves. When we know the risk, actions, and consequences and still believe we can improve overall utility then we are in a situation almost outside the scope of the precautionary principle.

But what if it isn’t so clear cut? Radicalisation, and exploitation can often happen over the internet. Can we justify giving up our privacy, and granting extensive surveillance powers to our government to mitigate this risk?

The problem is the principle tell that you should act, but it doesn’t tell you how to act. It’s a justification, not a solution. The tipping point varies from to person to person. High risk takers require a large amount of evidence, and irreversible risk of harm, while more cautious actors require less evidence, and less of a risk of harm.

Criticism occurs when the principle is used indiscriminately to advance an agenda, rather than as a specialised problem-solving tool. Rather than listing situations where it could apply (which covers almost every issue), we can try and define more content-neutral criteria about when to use it.

A known unknown is a risk that you understand based on your past experiences. The precautionary principle can be used to engage in a proportionate response. The level of response should be adapted, as much as possible, to the risk of harm.

An unknown unknown is a risk that we cannot anticipate or understand based on our current knowledge. This is where using the precautionary principle can become more contested. We can’t create a proportionate risk management strategy, because we can’t define the risk.

This gives us some more guidance on how to practically use the precautionary principle:

1. Can you define the scope of the problem?
2. Can you effectively target the solution you want?

Ultimately, precaution is important, but it’s worth questioning if our precaution is proportional to the risk we are facing. On one hand, we cannot avoid every risk we will face, and uncertainty is, to an extent, inevitable. On the other, there are some risks too big to ignore.