A Basis for Action - Commission de l'éthique de la science et de la ...

Position Statement of the Commission de l'éthique de la science et de la technologie
Danger, risk, known risk, hypothetical risk. Danger is “exposure to possible evil, injury, or harm,”
(Webster’s) while risk is “the possibility of suffering harm or loss; a factor, course, or element involving
uncertain danger” (Webster’s). According to these definitions, it is possible to say that danger exists
absolutely, in and of itself, while the possible occurrence of danger is what creates a risk. A known risk
is one whose existence has been demonstrated; and, depending on the circumstances, its probability of
occurrence can be calculated—from low to extremely high; never zero 151 —or not (e.g., in cases of
scientific uncertainty like avian flu). Hypothetical (or potential) risk is not demonstrated and may be
impossible to demonstrate; its probability of occurrence cannot be calculated, but it is still plausible
based on common sense or past experience (it does not arise from a foolish fear). In a certain sense, it
is an affirmation that there is a risk that a risk exists—and that the feared event may never occur
(optimistic attitude) or, at the other extreme, that it will almost certainly occur (catastrophist attitude).
It should be pointed out that not all hypotheses have the same value, and just because a hypothetical
risk exists does not mean it must be avoided at all costs. 152
Unreasonable, harmful, irreversible risk, or morally unacceptable danger. At the two extremes,
the known or hypothetical consequences of a risk may be benign or deadly, with a whole range of
possibilities between the two, from least to most harmful. According to UNESCO, “morally unacceptable
harm refers to harm to humans or the environment that is
– Threatening to human life or health, or
– Serious and effectively irreversible, or
– Inequitable to present or future generations, or
– Imposed without adequate consideration of the human rights of those affected” 153
Of all the notions that define the precautionary principle, “unreasonable risk” is undoubtedly the most
difficult to pin down, the most subjective, and the least tied to scientific expertise and mathematical
quantification. How many lives must be sacrificed, how many workers must suffer from an
occupational disease that reduces their life expectancy, how many animal or plant species must become
extinct, what level of air, water, and soil pollution must be reached for a risk to be deemed
unreasonable? Is irreversibility a criterion that can help answer all these questions and many other
similar ones? Such concerns lead to the issues of risk perception and societal acceptability, which,
according to the OECD, call for “a consensual approach to the use of precaution in risk management,
informed use of cost-benefit and decision analysis tools, and a participative-deliberative approach to
decision making” 154 —an ethics-based approach, in some sense, since a moral judgment must be made
regarding the acceptability of the risk according to socially shared values.
151 Philippe KOURILSKY and Geneviève VINEY, Le principe de précaution, report to the prime minister, Paris,
October 15, 1999, p. 5 of the PDF version [online] http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr.
152 Mark HUNYADI, “Qu’est-ce que le principe de précaution? Nouvelles réflexions sur les usages du PP,”
speaking notes, seminar on the precautionary principle, Commission de l’éthique de la science et de la
technologie, November 4, 2005, p. 8.
153 WORLD COMMISSION ON THE ETHICS OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNOLOGY (COMEST), The
Precautionary Principle, op. cit., p. 14.
154 ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD), Emerging Risks in the
21 st Century..., op. cit., p. 85.
38 Ethics and Nanotechnology:
A Basis for Action