Lowell Statement on Science and the Precautionary Principle
December 17, 2001
Statement from the International Summit on Science and the Precautionary Principle
Growing awareness of the potentially vast scale of human impacts on planetary health has led to a recognition of the need to change the ways in which environmental protection decisions are made, and the ways that scientific knowledge informs those decisions. As scientists and other professionals committed to improving global health, we therefore call for the recognition of the precautionary principle as a key component of environmental and health policy decision-making, particularly when complex and uncertain threats must be addressed.
We reaffirm the 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle and believe that effective implementation of this principle requires the following elements:
| • | upholding the basic right of each individual (and future generations) to a healthy, life-sustaining environment as called for in the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights; |
| • | action on early warnings, when there is credible evidence that harm is occurring or likely to occur, even if the exact nature and magnitude of the harm are not fully understood; |
| • | identification, evaluation and implementation of the safest feasible approaches to meeting social needs; |
| • | placing responsibility on originators of potentially dangerous activities to thoroughly study and minimize risks, and to evaluate and choose the safest alternatives to meet a particular need, with independent review; and |
| • | application of transparent and inclusive decision-making processes that increase the participation of all stakeholders and communities, particularly those potentially affected by a policy choice. |
We believe that effective application of the precautionary principle requires interdisciplinary scientific research, as well as explicitness about the uncertainties involved in this research and its findings. Precautionary decision-making is consistent with "sound science" because of the large areas of uncertainty and even ignorance that persist in our understanding of complex biological systems, in the interconnectedness of organisms, and in the potential for interactive and cumulative impacts of multiple hazards. Because of these uncertainties, science will sometimes be incapable of providing clear and certain answers to important questions about potential environmental hazards. In these instances, policy decisions must be made on the basis of sound judgment, open discussion, and other public values, in addition to whatever scientific information is available. We believe that waiting for incontrovertible scientific evidence of harm before preventive action is taken can increase the risk of costly mistakes that can cause serious and irreversible harm not only to ecosystem and human health and well-being, but also to the economy.
Some of the ways that scientific information is currently applied in formulating policy can work against the ability to take precautionary action, for example by misrepresenting limitations in the state of scientific knowledge. Decision-makers frequently look for high levels of proof of causal links between a technology and a risk before acting, so that their decisions will be protected from accusations of being arbitrary. But often, high levels of proof cannot be achieved, and are not likely to be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. A more complete and open presentation from scientists on the current limitations in understanding of environmental risks will encourage the acceptance on the part of government decision-makers and the public of the idea that precautionary action is a prudent and effective strategy when potential risks are large and uncertainties are large as well.
It is not only the communication between scientists and policy makers, however, which needs improvement. We believe that there are ways in which the current methods of scientific inquiry may also retard precautionary action. For example, research frequently focuses on narrow, quantifiable aspects of problems, thus inadvertently excluding from consideration potential interactions among different components of the complex biologic systems of which humans are a part. The compartmentalization of scientific knowledge further impedes the ability of science to detect and investigate early warnings and develop options for preventing harm when far-reaching health and environmental risks are involved. Unfortunately, limitations in scientific tools and in the ability to quantify causal relationships are often misinterpreted by government decision-makers, scientists, and proponents of hazardous activities as evidence of safety. However, not knowing whether an action is harmful is not the same thing as knowing that it is safe.
We contend that effective implementation of the precautionary principle demands improved scientific methods, and a new interface between science and policy that stresses the continuous updating of knowledge as well as improved communication of risk, certainty, and uncertainty. With these objectives in mind, we call for a reevaluation of scientific research agendas, funding priorities, science education, and science policy. The ultimate goals of this effort would include:
| • | a more effective linkage between research on hazards and expanded research on prevention and restoration; |
| • | increased use of interdisciplinary approaches to science and policy, including better integration of qualitative and quantitative data; |
| • | innovative research methods for analyzing the cumulative and interactive effects of various hazards to which ecosystems and people are exposed; for examining impacts on populations and systems; and for analyzing the impacts of hazards on vulnerable subpopulations and disproportionately affected communities; |
| • | systems for continuous monitoring and surveillance to avoid unintended consequences of actions, and to identify early warnings of risks; and |
| • | more comprehensive techniques for analyzing and communicating potential hazards and uncertainties (what is known, not known, and can be known). |
We understand that human activities cannot be risk-free. However, we contend that society has not realized the full potential of science and policy to prevent damage to ecosystems and health while ensuring progress towards a healthier and economically sustainable future. The goal of precaution is to prevent harm, not to prevent progress. We believe that applying precautionary policies can foster innovation in better materials, safer products, and alternative production processes.
We urge governments to adopt the precautionary principle in environmental and health decision-making under uncertainty when there are potential risks, as well as to take timely preventive and restorative actions in cases where damage has been demonstrated. The elements of decision-making processes incorporating the precautionary principle, as outlined above, represent necessary aspects of sound, rational processes for preventing negative impacts of human activities on human and ecosystem health. This approach shares the core values and preventive traditions of medicine and public health.