This article contributes to the clarification of the concept of precaution and its function in social debate. The authors compare the uses of precaution in science and technology—related conflicts (as indicated by an analysis of media reports on precaution) with data from a survey on precaution and the role of science in decision making. While the survey data confirm the existence of opposing “idealized” or “ideological” conceptualizations of the role of science in regulatory decisions, the analyzed media reports show an added degree of complexity on the level of social dynamics. The media analysis identifies an instrumental use of the concept of precaution in social debate, which is independent of “ideological” positions on precaution, and serves as a way of empowerment for social actors critical of scientific-technological proposals, allowing them to counterbalance information asymmetries.
Barnett, J., Timotijevic, L., Vasallo, M., & Shepherd, R. ( 2008). Precautionary advice about mobile phones: Public understandings and intended responses. Journal of Risk Research, 11, 525-540.
2.
Cranor, C. ( 1999). Asymmetric information, the precautionary principle, and burdens of proof.. In Raffensberger & Tickner (Eds.), Protecting public health and the environment: Implementing the precautionary principle (pp. 74-99). Washington, DC: Island Press,.
3.
European Commission. (1992). Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21/05/1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal of the European Communities, L206, 7-50.
4.
European Commission. (2000). Communication from the commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM 1 ( 2000). Brussels, Belgium:Author.
5.
European Commission. (2001). Council Directive 2001/18/EC (12/3/2001) on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. Official Journal of the European Communities, L106, 1-39.
6.
European Parliament and Council. (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23/10/2000, establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy . Official Journal of the European Communities, L327, 1-73.
7.
European Parliament and Council. (2002). Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28/1/2002, laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. Official Journal of the European Communities, L31, 1-24.
8.
European Parliament and Council. (2006). Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18/12/2006, concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. Official Journal of the European Communities, L136, 3-280.
9.
Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J.R. ( 1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
10.
Gaskell, G., Einsiedel, E., Hallman, W., Priest, S.H., Jackson, J., & Olsthoorn, J. ( 2005). Social values and the governance of science. Science, 310, 1908-1909.
11.
Graham, J.D. ( 2001). Decision-analytic refinements of the precautionary principle . Journal of Risk Research, 4, 127-141.
12.
Graham, J.D. & Hsia, S. ( 2002). Europe’s precautionary principle: Promises and pitfalls. Journal of Risk Research, 5, 371-390.
13.
Latour, B. ( 1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
Latour, B. ( 1993). Aramis or the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
Litmanen, T., & Tuikkanen, A. ( 2008). Global sense of risk: Media reporting on scientific studies and potential risks of mobile phones. Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology, 40, 71-90.
16.
Luján, J.L., Mirabal, O., Borrillo, D., Santesmases, M.J., & Muñoz, E. (1996). Spain: Transposing EC biotechnology directives through negotiation. Science and Public Policy, 23, 181-184.
17.
Luján, J.L., & Todt, O. ( 2007). Precaution in public: The social perception of the role of science and values in policy making. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 97-109.
18.
Murphy, J., Levidow, L., & Carr, S. ( 2006). Regulatory standard for environmental risks. Social Studies of Science, 36, 133-160.
19.
Raffensperger, C., & Tickner, J. (Eds.). (1999). Protecting public health and the environment: Implementing the precautionary principle. Washington, DC: Island Press.
20.
Sandin, P. ( 2004). The precautionary principle and the concept of precaution . Environmental Values, 13, 461-475.
21.
Schütz, H., Wiedemann, P., & Clauberg, M. ( 2007). The public perception of precaution. EMBO reports, 8, 612-613.
22.
Starr, C. ( 2003). The precautionary principle versus risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 23, 1-3.
23.
Stirling, A. ( 2007). Risk, precaution and science: Towards a more constructive policy debate. EMBO reports, 8, 309-315.
24.
Sunstein, C. ( 2002). Risk and reason: Safety, law and the environment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Todt, O. ( 2004). Regulating agricultural biotechnology under uncertainty . Safety Science, 42, 143-158.
26.
Todt, O., & Luján, J.L. (2000). Commercialization drives public debate and precaution. Journal of Risk Research, 3, 237-245.
27.
Todt, O., & Luján, J.L. (2008). A new social contract for technology?: On the policy dynamics of uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research, 11, 509-523.
28.
Todt, O., Muñoz, E., & Plaza, M. ( 2007). Food safety governance and social learning. Food Control, 18, 834-841.
29.
United Nations. (1992). Agenda 21. New York: Author.
30.
Weiss, C. ( 2003). Scientific uncertainty and science-based precaution. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Laws and Economics, 3, 137-166.
