The precautionary principle as in the UN Rio Declaration etc. is:
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack
of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
measures to prevent environmental degradation.
In that light, a study using banding would, if the risks are carefully
considered, fully accord with the precautionary principle.
Of course there are many versions of the PP (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle ) of which one - the
Prohibitory PP aligns with Ian's stance. This states:
Activities that present an uncertain potential for significant harm should be
prohibited unless the proponent of the activity shows that it presents no
appreciable risk of harm
Of course - assuming that version is accepted - it has to be reasonably
established that the potential harm is significant before the burden of proof
shifts, which means there has to be prior debate about what "reasonable",
"significant" and "appreciable" mean in the context.
Personally I don't favour that version of the PP because it makes it difficult
to balance the potential gains against the risks, especially when the
intervention intends (as presumably in this banding study) to benefit the
species that might be harmed.
And it would also have stopped those marvellous doctors shown on TV recently
(and others) who have experimented on themselves to test vaccines etc.
Michael Norris
|
