Uncertainty Modeling with Imprecise Statistical Reasoning and the Precautionary Principle in Decision Making

2009 ◽  
pp. 225-239
Author(s):  
I. Kozine
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Uncertainty Modeling ◽  
Statistical Reasoning ◽  
The Precautionary Principle

Precaution: A taxonomy

2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Luis Luján ◽  
Oliver Todt
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Technology Policy ◽  
Technological Development ◽  
Science And Technology Policy ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Scientific Uncertainty ◽  
Direct Link ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Policy Debates

In this paper we propose a typology of three interpretations of the precautionary principle, each with its associated philosophical and policy implications. We found that these different interpretations of precaution are closely related to variations in the understanding of scientific uncertainty, as well as varying ways of assessing possible (but uncertain) impacts of scientific–technological development. There is a direct link to the question of what scientific knowledge is and what role it plays in regulation and decision-making. The proposed typology permits a conceptual systematization of the current controversies related to the precautionary principle, while facilitating understanding of some of the deeper roots of science and technology policy debates.

Precautionary Principle in the Court Settlement of Civil Environmental Cases

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Cecep Aminudin ◽  
Efa Laela Fakhriah ◽  
Ida Nurlinda ◽  
Isis Ikhwansyah
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Scientific Uncertainty ◽  
Weak Version ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Environmental Decision Making ◽  
Legal Decision Making ◽  
Civil Courts

In recent years, the precautionary principle has begun to enter legal decision-making in Indonesian civil courts. This introduction is in line with environmental cases that often involve much scientific evidence. This article aims to describe theoretical elaboration and, to a certain extent, legal developments in the application of the precautionary principle in the settlement of civil environmental cases in Indonesia. The precautionary principle provides a framework for environmental decision-making in the event of scientific uncertainty. The theoretical elaboration shows a wide dimension of influence of the precautionary principle on the system of liability and proof. In comparison, the court cases also show the application of the precautionary principle in the liability system and proof despite still in its weak version.

Precautionary principles: a jurisdiction-free framework for decision-making under risk

2004 ◽  
Vol 23 (12) ◽  
pp. 579-600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo F Ricci ◽  
Louis A Cox ◽  
Thomas R MacDonald
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Causal Reasoning ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Quantitative Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making Under Risk ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Qualitative Risk Assessment ◽  
New Information

Fundamental principles of precaution are legal maxims that ask for preventive actions, perhaps as contingent interim measures while relevant information about causality and harm remains unavailable, to minimize the societal impact of potentially severe or irreversible outcomes. Such principles do not explain how to make choices or how to identify what is protective when incomplete and inconsistent scientific evidence of causation characterizes the potential hazards. Rather, they entrust lower jurisdictions, such as agencies or authorities, to make current decisions while recognizing that future information can contradict the scientific basis that supported the initial decision. After reviewing and synthesizing national and international legal aspects of precautionary principles, this paper addresses the key question: How can society manage potentially severe, irreversible or serious environmental outcomes when variability, uncertainty, and limited causal knowledge characterize their decisionmaking? A decision Rational choice of an action from among various alternatives-requires accounting for costs, benefits and the change in risks associated with each candidate action. Decisions under any form of the precautionary principle reviewed must account for the contingent nature of scientific information, creating a link to the decision/response models to the current set of regulatory defaults such as the linear, non-threshold models. This increase in the number of defaults is an important improvement because most of the variants of the precautionary principle require cost-defined as a choice that makes preferred consequences more likely-analytic principle of expected value of information (VOI), to show the relevance of new information, relative to the initial (and smaller) set of data on which the decision was based. We exemplify this seemingly simple situation using risk management of BSE. As an integral aspect of causal analysis under risk, the methods developed in this paper permit the addition of non-linear, hormetic dose-analytic solution is outlined that focuses on risky decisions and accounts for prior states of information and scientific beliefs that can be updated as subsequent information becomes available. As a practical and established approach to causal reasoning and decision-making under risk, inherent to precautionary decision-making, these (Bayesian) methods help decision-makers and stakeholders because they formally account for probabilistic outcomes, new information, and are consistent and replicable. benefit balancing. Specifically, increasing the set of causal defaults accounts for beneficial effects at very low doses. We also show and conclude that quantitative risk assessment dominates qualitative risk assessment, supporting the extension of the set of default causal models.

Lead Me Beside Still Waters

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-50
Author(s):  
Lisa Nichols Hickman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Trisomy 21 ◽  
Daily Routine ◽  
Crystal Ball ◽  
Global Commons ◽  
Social Disability ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Water Toxicity ◽  
Proposed Model

Artist Ena Swansea paints a provocative paradox in “One” from her “4 Seasons” quadtych: Is the child in the bathtub playfully holding a bubble, the orb of our global commons, or a crystal ball that portends an ominous future? As the viewer is confronted with the image of a child who, in the middle of an ordinary daily routine, is up to his armpits in a pool of blood red water, the question of water toxicity becomes central in the painting. Working from that image, this paper explores the interaction between water toxicity and Trisomy 21, proposing the need for a “precautionary principle” to guide decision-making. The rationale for that principle is developed here through a study of communities with heightened links between water toxicity and Trisomy 21, a deepened theology of water across worldviews drawing on the work of John Hart’s Sacramental Commons, and a proposed model for “eco-social disability.” Because scientific studies linking toxic water and Trisomy 21 are inconclusive, the precautionary principle serves as a guide to prevent the potential disabling effects of toxic water causing unjust generation of disablement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document