Integrating Foresight and Precaution into the Conduct of Environmental Science,
Report of the International Summit on Science and the Precautionary Principle,
September 20-22, 2001, Lowell, MA
Lowell Center for Sustainable Production
University of Massachusetts Lowell
December 10, 2001
From September 20–22, 2001, the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production (LCSP) hosted The International Summit on Science and the Precautionary Principle. The Summit brought together scientists, philosophers, legal scholars, and other environmental and health professionals to explore the relationship between science and the precautionary principle, as well as to develop a vision for scientific methods, tools, and policies that would more effectively support precautionary decision-making, particularly in the face of complex, highly uncertain human and ecosystem health risks.
The Summit was the first international opportunity for leading scholars to discuss the role of science in implementing the precautionary principle. It convened a new community of scientists and other health and environmental professionals, linking individuals working on evaluating risks with individuals working on developing preventive solutions.
The primary goal of the International Summit on Science and the Precautionary Principle was to build an understanding and support for the role of science in implementing the precautionary principle. See Overview for more background information. The Summit had the following objectives:
| 1. | to outline the ways in which the current practice of science limits precautionary decision-making; |
| 2. | to envision, explore, and build consensus on changes needed in the practice and application of science that would better support the precautionary principle; |
| 3. | to strategize among the scientific community on how to build a base of support for these changes; and |
| 4. | to understand cultural and socio-political differences across nations that affect how science is applied in decision-making. |
Summit Participants
The Summit convened 85 experts from a wide range of disciplines and countries to ensure broad input and perspectives. Participants were invited on the basis of their innovative work on the methods and conduct of environmental science; contributions to public and environmental health; experience working at the interface between science and policy; and interest in exploring the precautionary principle and its implications for science and policy. Representatives from government agencies, academic institutions, research consultancies, professional societies, and non-governmental organizations from 17 countries attended, representing the fields of medicine, public health, epidemiology, toxicology, ecology, molecular biology, chemistry, botany, law, philosophy, physics, sociology, psychology, economics, geography, conservation biology, evolutionary biology, wildlife biology, virology, marine science, agronomy, and political science. See Participant List.
Summit Overview
The Summit Agenda was designed to allow maximum time for small group and plenary discussions, while providing sufficient background — through short presentations — to stimulate discussion.
The initial two sessions provided a context for discussing the precautionary principle and its role in science: the problems that have evolved over the past 50 years through not applying precaution; the costs to health and environment that result from environmental degradation; the pervasive uncertainties involved in studying complex systems; the ethical imperative for precaution; and the need for new alliances between scientists and advocates to institute more precautionary approaches to science and policy. These sessions provided the ethical, political, and scientific rationale for new scientific methods and policies that support precaution. Some relevant points included:
| • | Providing a history of the impacts of not using precaution, Dr. Barry Commoner noted that because so little is known about human and ecological systems, the sensible approach to complex risks such as chemical and biotechnology is to be cautious. |
| • | Per Rosander from Sweden and Lee Ketelsen from the U.S. challenged scientists to be clearer about uncertainties and more active in promoting a precautionary approach in response to pressures to forestall action. |
| • | Dr. Romeo Quijano from the Philippines noted that "Being a scientist is hazardous. We lose common sense by focusing on narrow issues but missing the larger picture." |
| • | Dr. Matthias Kaiser from Norway noted that the precautionary principle is based on a moral responsibility to reduce and act on our ignorance of possible future harm. It requires a broader perspective for decision-making, including democratic processes for participation under uncertainty. Dr. Juan Almendares from Honduras added that the precaution is intrinsically linked to the protection of human rights. |
| • | Dr. Silvio Funtowicz from Italy suggested that while uncertainty is often considered synonymous with bad information, we need to shift our thinking to the idea of quality of information. This means using the best available information in decision-making. It involves more of a focus on extended facts that currently escape scientific theory and practices and are therefore ignored. It also means extended peer communities that take into account the pluralism characterizing complex systems. It means not confusing absence of evidence of harm with evidence of absence of harm. It means ensuring that problems are properly defined and framed so as to avoid the situation of "precise answer, wrong problem." |
The next session used case studies on highly uncertain environmental and health risks — chemicals, biodiversity, fisheries degradation, genetically modified organisms and climate change — to build an understanding of the types of uncertainties involved in studying environmental and health risks, how they are addressed in science and policy and the ways in which science, as currently conducted, can limit the ability to adequately address the problem of uncertainty and the need to make decisions. The objective of this session was to develop a framework for describing various types of uncertainty and to discuss how uncertainty should influence public policy. Some key comments from the presentations include:
| • | Dr. Joe Thornton noted that all living systems, from the molecular to the global scales, share a set of fundamental properties that prevent the impacts of large-scale interventions from being predicted with confidence — these have been shaped by their mutual interactions within ecosystems and organisms and by billions of years of evolution. Given these uncertainties, Dr. Carl Cranor challenged scientists to develop methods for identifying early warnings of hazards — an upstream approach to risk reduction. |
| • | Dr. Finn Bro-Rasmussen from Denmark argued that there are numerous types of uncertainty in examining chemical risks, including: trivial scientific uncertainty; model or extrapolation uncertainty; ignorance; and indeterminacy of complex systems. These can be addressed in different ways: through presumptions of dangers for untested chemicals, establishing lists of dangerous substances and characteristics that could result in risks, and goals for reducing emissions. |
| • | Dr. Paul Epstein noted that the effects of climate change on human health are complex to study because they depend on a sequence of events that compounds uncertainty. Don Brown noted that despite uncertainty about health effects, given knowledge about climate change, as a matter of ethics enough has been understood about the risk of global warming to trigger an ethical responsibility to act. Scientific uncertainty about climate change (and other risks) is often put forward as a way to hide an underlying economic rationale not to act. |
| • | Boyce Thorne-Miller noted that while there is always uncertainty in examining marine ecosystems, fisheries managers have focused most of their attention on establishing quantitative "conservation goals" which are estimated populations needed for the sustained production of the Maximum Sustainable Yield of fishery stocks. This approach has led to numerous problems and she recommended greater use of adaptive management techniques and broad focus on a natural systems economy to feed humans rather than an industrial production based economy. |
The next set of sessions engaged participants in exploring solutions to the problems of uncertainty and limitations in the ways science is currently conducted for policy. Participants worked to brainstorm and envision the questions and methods that scientists could promote for more effectively supporting precautionary measures. A small group discussion session allowed participants to envision the tools they could develop and promote for addressing uncertainty and while acknowledging limits in science — if provided an unlimited research budget. Participants also brainstormed the design of educational programs to train students in these new methods, as well as the types of agenda-setting questions they would like governments and research funding agencies to ask of scientists.
During the session, participants noted that more money should be channeled to interdisciplinary research. They identified several research and science policy needs: (1) a greater use of integrative assessment frameworks; (2) more use of science to "backcast" from desired health and environmental outcomes, rather than just forecast damage in the future; (3) development of processes to allow for speculation, as well as more funding should address identification of early warnings and situations where damage could occur; (4) development of new language to express conclusions and discuss uncertainty and limits; (5) establishment of better methods to assess alternatives are needed; (4) addressing the problem of a fragmented knowledge base — people view problems in a narrow way and we need to transcend disciplines; (6) to reach out early to students before old ideas get ingrained and educate them in a multi-disciplinary manner that includes bioethics. Ultimately, participants believed that it is currently dangerous for students and researchers to be multidisciplinary or to engage in public interest research. The way we govern and fund science, including the incentive system, must be changed.
Following this brainstorming of ways to improve science, the next session explored the relationship between science to public policy, including the translation of scientific information into policy, and the cultural and political influences on science for policy. Using the tri-butyl tin as a case study, Dr. Cato Ten Hallers-Tjabbes from the Netherlands argued the need for a more effective interface between scientists and policy makers. This can improve the information basis of decisions and refine the types of questions asked and methods used, as well as the expediency of preventive actions.
An evening public forum provided an opportunity for local government officials and environmental and health advocates to jointly explore the issues of science and precaution. The session highlighted the importance of including a broad range of communities in making decisions under uncertainty and developing a vision for the precautionary principle.
| • | Dr. Vandana Shiva from India explored the implications of the Green Revolution on India as well as the implications of biotechnology. She stated that the mostly unforeseen and unacknowledged health and ecological effects of the Green Revolution in India demonstrate the need for precaution in implementing new technologies. She noted "Those who are affected by an action or a product must have the ability to provide information about impacts. That is also the foundation of peaceful societies." She stated that the precautionary principle is the ability to listen. |
| • | Dr. Andrew Stirling from the United Kingdom argued that based on late lessons from early scientific warnings, there is an urgent need to improve the use of science and policy in decision-making. This includes a more effective use of interdisciplinary methods; exploring a broad range of options to prevent risks; involving a broader range of communities in decisions; being clear about uncertainties so as to minimize surprises; and reducing obstacles to learning. |
| • | Dr. Elizabeth Guillette presented her group's research on the effects of pesticides on the Yaqui Indian children of Mexico. Through innovative research on play activities she was able to identify hidden deficits resulting from parental and ongoing exposure to multiple pesticides in children considered normal by their parents and society. Arguing that the range of possible chemical-induced human harm is concealed from our present understanding, she noted the need for new methods and approaches to environmental science to protect those most vulnerable in the population. |
Building on earlier discussions on the role of science in prevention, one panel explored directions for science to support the development of preventive solutions in addition to evaluating risks. The goal of the session was to explore ways to better integrate scientific research with primary prevention.
| • | Dr. Mary O'Brien argued that we need to rethink the role of environmental science so that research is not only conducted in response to identified hazards (finding the level of harm that requires precautionary action) but rather to achieve expressed values (e.g., respect for all beings), and ambitious goals. In the latter case science is used for weighing options to reach positive goals. |
| • | Carolyn Raffensperger called for precaution to be integrated into the research agenda itself — making the precautionary principle more than a regulatory device and part of development and research phases of new technologies and activities. |
| • | Dr. Terry Collins argued that we need to develop chemical technologies that are more compatible with natural cycles, to design problems out of technologies before they happen. He also noted that students in chemistry and engineering must be educated about the potential implications of the products they create. |
| • | Dr. Joel Tickner presented the concept of precautionary assessment as a method for integrating a more holistic, interdisciplinary approach to science, with examination of alternatives and participative structures. He argued that the acceptability of a risk must be a function of the ability to prevent harm in the first place. |
A final session provided an opportunity for participants to develop a set of concrete actions and next steps for promoting a vision for science that supports precaution and overcoming barriers to such an agenda for science and policy. Results from this session are presented below (Summit Followup).
In closing the Summit, Dr. Richard Levins reflected on his decades of scientific research in ecology and health. He argued that there are many scientific methods, depending on the nature of the problem and the stage of the investigation, and that methods must be appropriate to the problem being studied. He noted that humans and ecosystems are more connected than we realize, even across disciplinary boundaries, and that this requires us to examine new strategies for minimizing our impacts on health and the environment. He suggested that we use science to understand how natural systems deal with disturbances and cope with uncertainties to model our own ways of studying and preventing damage to health and ecosystems. Due to the political nature of decisions and uncertainty, it is necessary to democratize both science and decision-making to allow a broader range of experiences and perspectives.
Summit Discussions and Conclusions
The Summit discussions reflected the energy and enthusiasm of scientists and other professionals towards building new interdisciplinary linkages with the goal of more preventive, precautionary health and environmental decision-making. The discussions also reflected both the complexity and need for more understanding of the precautionary principle and its role in science and policy. The Summit discussions did not challenge the importance of precaution in environmental and health decision-making under uncertainty; however, its application in every day practice needs further elaboration. The Summit provided an opportunity for practicing scientists to step back and reflect on their work and its implications for society. Participants gained a stronger understanding of the role of science in preventive public policy and began to discuss particular tools and science policies for more effective application of implementation of the precautionary principle.
Some of Summit recommendations to overcome barriers and build momentum towards a vision for science and policy that better reflects uncertainty and complexity of natural systems include:
| • | The need for a new community that links scientists working on evaluating risks with scientists working on preventive solutions. The most important outcome of the Summit was the creation of a new community of scientists, dedicated to exploring ways to improve the use of science in decision-making, where scientists can support each other's (often controversial) work, as well as candidly discuss ideas and policies. It was noted that science has an important role in both studying the impacts of human development, but also in generating the solutions that would lead us towards more sustainable modes of production and consumption. |
| • | The need for transdisciplinary approaches to science and policy. Participants found that the most effective and robust way to conduct science for policy in the face of uncertainty, are interdisciplinary collaborations. However, these types of collaborations are the exception rather than the rule and are often frowned upon by funding agencies, government authorities, and professional societies. Participants concluded that "we need to make it safe for transdisciplinarity." |
| • | The need for critical self-reflection and discussion. Participants noted that there are insufficient opportunities for scientists to think about their methods, tools, and the implications of the research they do. It is necessary to identify opportunities for scientists to step back from everyday practice and think about whether their work could more effectively support precautionary policies. It is also important to find language to reach out to different scientific communities, to engage them in thinking about new ways of conducting science for policy. Case studies and examples might provide one such vehicle for communication. |
| • | The need to develop specific examples of ways in which science can better support precautionary, preventive policies. Such cases could examine aspects of scientific methods that could change including: broader hypothesis development, more effective communication of uncertainty, integration of qualitative and quantitative data, a more effective integration of science in policy, etc. In addition, there is a need to examine problems created by the way science has traditionally been conducted and applied in policy. |
| • | The need to identify opportunities in research and regulatory structures for developing and promoting a new vision for science and policy that supports precaution. For example, there might be ways to advocate changes to government research funding structures so that more interdisciplinary, innovative methods could be undertaken. |
Summit Follow-up
Participants identified numerous avenues for outreach and Summit follow-up. These activities, many of which will be undertaken by the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production working with Summit participants, over the next two years, include:
| • | Disseminating a Summit statement on science and precaution. With input from participants, a summit statement has been finalized, supporting the precautionary principle and the relationship between science, precaution, and policy. This important statement will be disseminated widely to government and academic scientists and advocates through listservs, articles, and direct contacts. |
| • | Publish articles in scientific journals. Several articles summarizing the Summit discussions and statement will be written for major scientific and professional journals. |
| • | Outreach and technical assistance to professional societies and other venues. Meetings will be convened with the leadership of major scientific professional societies to initiate debates/forums on the precautionary principle and its role in environmental and health science, as well as provide technical assistance to scientists in understanding the principle and its application. At least 2-3 such discussions will be held in the coming year as part of professional society or other conferences. |
| • | Developing means for ongoing communication, dialogue, and strategy among the growing network of people interested in science and precaution. A website and listserv on science and precaution have been established to provide timely information to this growing network of individuals. |
| • | Preparing additional Summits. Scientists in three regions — Africa, South East Asia, and Latin America — have expressed an interest in hosting discussions similar to those held in Lowell on science and precaution. Discussions with scientists in those regions will be initiated to evaluate interest and support. These meetings are important in that they could broaden our understanding of the role of science and precaution in policy as well as fortify the existing efforts of scientists in those regions. There was also participant interest in holding another Summit in Lowell in 2003 to follow up and measure progress towards change. |
| • | Development of case studies and best practices. One clear need identified by participants is good examples of more precautionary approaches to science and policy. In the coming year, case studies of approaches to science and policy that support more precautionary decisions will be collected to demonstrate how the Summit vision for science and policy can lead to more preventive decisions. These case examples will be translated into teaching curricula, reports and articles. |
| • | Publication of a book of papers presented at the Summit. Presentations made at the Summit, along with several additional invited papers, will be compiled into an edited volume geared toward a broad audience. The edited volume will be published by Island Press. Given the success of the edited volume which originated in the Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle (Protecting Public Health and the Environment), a book on science and precaution could provide an important vehicle for shaping the international debate on the precautionary principle. |
Summing Up the Summit
The Summit furthered the goal of the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production to establish a detailed, forward looking international discussion on science and precaution. Bringing together a set of leading scholars, it created a forum for communications between people from many disciplines working on this issue, many of whom had never met. It also allowed this group to develop an articulated consensus on problems with the current paradigm of science, precaution, and policy-making, as well as some ideas for what a new paradigm could look like. The enthusiasm and energy generated by the first meeting of this innovative group of people was astonishing. Many participants noted that this was among the most engaging, forward-looking workshops they had attended in years.
Overall, participants believed the Summit was a crucial step in building a new interdisciplinary network of professionals dedicated to advancing science and precaution. It has had a large impact in advancing discussions on science and precaution, as well as providing an environment for scientists and advocates to support each other's efforts towards changing science and policy. Our challenge will be to maintain the enthusiasm and momentum gained at the Summit, to develop the specifics of the vision for science that supports precaution and to promote that vision internationally.
Another critical result of the Summit was the strong show of support to advocates promoting precautionary policies at the state, national, and international level that was provided. Since, advocates' calls for precaution are often criticized for being based on emotion or bad science, the Summit represented an opportunity for a leading group of scientists to publicly state that precaution is entirely consistent with good science. The Summit statement will provide a critical tool in shaping national and international debates on precaution.
References
Kriebel, D, J Tickner, P Epstein, J Lemons, R Levins, E Loechler, M Quinn, R Rudel, T Schettler and M Stoto. 2001. The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Science. Environmental Health Perspectives 109: 871-876.
European Environment Agency. Forthcoming. Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1898-1998. Copenhagen.