IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v10y2007i4p487-501.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Procedure for the Implementation of the Precautionary Principle in Biosafety Commissions

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Ammann
  • Angelika Hilbeck
  • Beatrice Lanzrein
  • Philipp Hübner
  • Bernadette Oehen

Abstract

In order to fulfil their responsibilities under the precautionary principle, biosafety commissions should lay down guidelines concerning the understanding and application of this principle and work towards an operational procedure. With this contribution, we propose a step-wise procedure that aims to establish the understanding of the precautionary principle within biosafety commissions and to provide a methodological approach for the application of this principle to specific cases in the course of risk assessment. This approach is based on systematically investigating the consensus view within a group of 15 biosafety experts with the help of sets of checklists. For step 1, we propose a checklist of 13 criteria aimed at defining the understanding of the precautionary principle. For step 2, we propose 4 criteria for the decision on whether or not to use the precautionary principle. For step 3, 11 criteria for the use of the precautionary principle are presented. In step 4, additional criteria for specific applications could be included. In step 5, possible recommendations to decision-making authorities are proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Ammann & Angelika Hilbeck & Beatrice Lanzrein & Philipp Hübner & Bernadette Oehen, 2007. "Procedure for the Implementation of the Precautionary Principle in Biosafety Commissions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 487-501, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:10:y:2007:i:4:p:487-501
    DOI: 10.1080/13669870701424740
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870701424740
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669870701424740?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Per Sandin & Martin Peterson & Sven Ove Hansson & Christina Rudén & André Juthe, 2002. "Five charges against the precautionary principle," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 287-299, October.
    2. Jonathan B. Wiener & Michael D. Rogers, 2002. "Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 317-349, October.
    3. Mikael Karlsson, 2006. "The Precautionary Principle, Swedish Chemicals Policy and Sustainable Development," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 337-360, June.
    4. Andreas Klinke & Marion Dreyer & Ortwin Renn & Andrew Stirling & Patrick Van Zwanenberg, 2006. "Precautionary Risk Regulation in European Governance," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 373-392, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Terje Aven, 2011. "On Different Types of Uncertainties in the Context of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1515-1525, October.
    2. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    3. Johan Eriksson & Mikael Karlsson & Marta Reuter, 2010. "Technocracy, Politicization, and Noninvolvement: Politics of Expertise in the European Regulation of Chemicals," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(2), pages 167-185, March.
    4. Jamie K. Wardman & Ragnar Löfstedt, 2018. "Anticipating or Accommodating to Public Concern? Risk Amplification and the Politics of Precaution Reexamined," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1802-1819, September.
    5. Irene Lorenzoni & Nick F. Pidgeon & Robert E. O'Connor, 2005. "Dangerous Climate Change: The Role for Risk Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1387-1398, December.
    6. Aven, Terje, 2011. "Selective critique of risk assessments with recommendations for improving methodology and practise," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(5), pages 509-514.
    7. Andy Stirling, 2016. "Precaution in the Governance of Technology," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    8. Ortwin Renn & Andreas Klinke, 2013. "A Framework of Adaptive Risk Governance for Urban Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(5), pages 1-24, May.
    9. John D. Graham & Jonathan B. Wiener, 2008. "The precautionary principle and risk--risk tradeoffs: a comment," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 465-474, June.
    10. Yan Cai & Eunmi Kim, 2019. "Sustainable Development in World Trade Law: Application of the Precautionary Principle in Korea-Radionuclides," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, April.
    11. Oliver Todt & José Luis Luján, 2014. "Analyzing Precautionary Regulation: Do Precaution, Science, and Innovation Go Together?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(12), pages 2163-2173, December.
    12. Gerstetter, Christiane & Maier, Matthias Leonhard, 2005. "Risk regulation, trade and international law: debating the precautionary principle in and around the WTO," TranState Working Papers 18, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    13. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2021. "The Coming of Age of Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 544-557, March.
    14. MacAuley, Molly K., 2006. "Issues at the Forefront of Public Policy for Environmental Risk: Comments for the American Meteorological Society's Annual Policy Colloquium," Discussion Papers 10494, Resources for the Future.
    15. Chataway, Joanna & Tait, Joyce & Wield, David, 2004. "Understanding company R&D strategies in agro-biotechnology: trajectories and blind spots," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 1041-1057, September.
    16. Thomas Boyer‐Kassem, 2017. "Is the Precautionary Principle Really Incoherent?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2026-2034, November.
    17. Finch, John & Geiger, Susi & Reid, Emma, 2017. "Captured by technology? How material agency sustains interaction between regulators and industry actors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 160-170.
    18. Steve Jacob & Nathalie Schiffino, 2015. "Risk Policies in the United States: Definition and Characteristics Based on a Scoping Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 849-858, May.
    19. Johnson Kakeu, 2023. "Concerns for Long-Run Risks and Natural Resource Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(4), pages 1051-1093, April.
    20. Hausken, Kjell, 2021. "The precautionary principle as multi-period games where players have different thresholds for acceptable uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:10:y:2007:i:4:p:487-501. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.