- Full (HTML) - Full (PDF) - Related EHP Articles - PubMed:Related Articles - PubMed:Citation - Cited in PMC - Purchase This Issue

David Kriebel,¹ Joel Tickner,¹ Paul Epstein,² John Lemons,³ Richard Levins,⁴ Edward L. Loechler,⁵ Margaret Quinn,¹ Ruthann Rudel,⁶ Ted Schettler,⁷ and Michael Stoto⁸

¹Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts-Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts, USA; ²Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard University Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; ³Department of Life Sciences, University of New England, Biddeford, Maine, USA; ⁴Department of Population and International Health, Harvard University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; ⁵Department of Biology, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; ⁶Silent Spring Institute, Newton, Massachusetts, USA; ⁷Science and Environmental Health Network, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; ⁸Department of Biostatistics, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA

Abstract

Environmental scientists play a key role in society's responses to environmental problems, and many of the studies they perform are intended ultimately to affect policy. The precautionary principle, proposed as a new guideline in environmental decision making, has four central components: taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty ; shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity ; exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions ; and increasing public participation in decision making. In this paper we examine the implications of the precautionary principle for environmental scientists, whose work often involves studying highly complex, poorly understood systems, while at the same time facing conflicting pressures from those who seek to balance economic growth and environmental protection. In this complicated and contested terrain, it is useful to examine the methodologies of science and to consider ways that, without compromising integrity and objectivity, research can be more or less helpful to those who would act with precaution. We argue that a shift to more precautionary policies creates opportunities and challenges for scientists to think differently about the ways they conduct studies and communicate results. There is a complicated feedback relation between the discoveries of science and the setting of policy. While maintaining their objectivity and focus on understanding the world, environmental scientists should be aware of the policy uses of their work and of their social responsibility to do science that protects human health and the environment. The precautionary principle highlights this tight, challenging linkage between science and policy. Key words: environmental science, foresight, planning, precaution, risk assessment, science policy. Environ Health Perspect 109:871-876 (2001) . [Online 15 August 2001]

http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2001/109p871-876kriebel/ abstract.html

Address correspondence to D. Kriebel, Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, University of Massachusetts Lowell, 1 University Avenue, Lowell, MA 01854 USA. Telephone: (978) 934-3250. Fax: (978) 452-5711. E-mail: David_Kriebel@uml.edu

We thank C. Crumbley for her assistance with this project.

This work was supported in part by grants from the John Merck Fund, the Jessie B. Cox Charitable Trust, the New York Community Trust, the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation, and the Mitchell Kapor Foundation.

Received 12 February 2001 ; accepted 28 February 2001.