International Journal of Epidemiology 2003;32:489-492
© International Epidemiological Association 2003
Review |
A compass for health: rethinking precaution and its role in science and public health
1 Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell.
2 Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, University of Massachusetts Lowell.
Correspondence: Joel Tickner, Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell, One University Avenue, Lowell MA 01854, USA. E-mail: joel_tickner@uml.edu
Keywords Precaution, innovation, false positive, environmental science
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
The precautionary principle continues to be a highly controversial topic in health and environmental policy. Despite its prominent role in key environmental treaties and European Union policy,1 consensus on its scientific foundations and practical implications remains elusive. In our view, three common criticisms of the precautionary principle arise from misunderstandings of how precautionary policy relates to science; and in this viewpoint we address these criticisms. The precautionary principle has been criticized for: stifling innovation,2 causing unintended consequences potentially more serious than the problem that triggered the precautionary action in the first place,3 and creating ‘false positives’—apparent risks that waste resources and distract from real problems.4,5
 |
Background |
|---|
The precautionary principle encourages policies that protect human health and the environment in the face of uncertain risks. In this broad sense, it is not a new concept. Precaution is at the heart of medical and public health practice, as embodied in the ‘first do
|
Precaution and innovation |
|---|
|
Precaution and trade-offs |
|---|
|
Precaution and ‘false positives’ |
|---|
|
Conclusions—precaution and foresight |
|---|
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G. Rezza The principle of precaution-based prevention: a Popperian paradox? Eur J Public Health, December 1, 2006; 16(6): 576 - 577. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Hurtig and M S. Sebastian Epidemiology vs epidemiology: the case of oil exploitation in the Amazon basin of Ecuador Int. J. Epidemiol., October 1, 2005; 34(5): 1170 - 1172. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|