The precautionary principle is often invoked when discussing nanotechnology, but Roger Scruton takes issue with it in a thought provoking essay in The National Interest .
The US, via the Wingspread Statement defines the principle as When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically whereas the European Commission claims that it may be applicable where preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen for the Community
Scruton takes Eurocrats to task and argues that while the words “preliminary”, “potentially”, “may” betray the essential retreat from precision that this statement involves, and the reference to a “high level of protection chosen for the Community” naturally leads to the question, “chosen by whom?,” the statement is in fact a license to forbid any activity that a bureaucrat might judge-on whatever flimsy grounds-to have a possible cost attached to it.
While if applied correctly the precautionary principle can be a valuable tool in understanding and highlighting risk, it also creates a risk of holding back the very technologies that can solve some of the worlds looming environmental problems in water, health and energy.
Use with caution!
Similar issues are raised in Bill McKibbens book, Enough: Genetic Engineering and the End of Human Nature, just released in paperback form.
The Guardian reviews it as;
McKibben’s 1989 eco-classic predicted the “End of Nature”. His latest salvo against the “techno-utopians” foretells the imminent demise of human nature. With nanotechnology and genetic modification “we will engineer ourselves out of existence”, he warns. One day, parents will be able to buy genetic upgrades for their children and we will view our body and its faculties as “a product of engineering”. This, McKibben argues, threatens “our understanding of what it means to be a human being”. In the post-human future, “who would you worship as your creator if your genes came from Pfizer?” He is a great polemicist and describes some truly alarming possibilities. But just as it is impossible to keep nature in a mythic state of unpolluted perfection, so it is doubtful that we will ever cease our Faustian quest for knowledge and say (as McKibben wants us to): “Enough.” It goes against our nature.