Debating the precautionary principle: "guilty until proven innocent" or "innocent until proven guilty"?

Processes for regulating genetically modified and gene edited plants

Innovation in agriculture has been essential in improving productivity of crops and forages to support a growing population, improving living standards while contributing toward maintaining environment integrity, human health, and wellbeing through provision of more nutritious, varied, and abundant food sources. A crucial part of that innovation has involved a range of techniques for both expanding and exploiting the genetic potential of plants. However, some techniques used for generating new variation for plant breeders to exploit are deemed higher risk than others despite end products of both processes at times being for all intents and purposes identical for the benefits they provide. As a result, public concerns often triggered by poor communication from innovators, resulting in mistrust and suspicion has, in turn, caused the development of a range of regulatory systems. The logic and motivations for modes of regulation used are reviewed and how the benefits from use of these technologies can be delivered more efficiently and effectively is discussed.

A global review of target impact and direct nontarget effects of classical weed biological control

Recent reviews show that classical weed biocontrol measures can be successful in reducing the negative impacts of invasive plant species, have impressive returns on investment, and contribute to slower rates of weed spread. Quantitative post-release monitoring is necessary to account for differences in biocontrol outcomes across spatial and temporal scales. Direct nontarget attack (NTA) incidence and severity are decreasing over time, and pre-release host-specificity tests can accurately predict NTA post-release, as long as the nontarget plant species are included in testing. Less than 1% of NTA was found where the impacted plant species had been tested pre-release and was deemed not at risk. Effectiveness and environmental safety will likely further improve with the incorporation of new technologies, such as experimental evolutionary studies.

A Definition and Categorization System for Advanced Materials: The Foundation for Risk-Informed Environmental Health and Safety Testing

Novel materials with unique or enhanced properties relative to conventional materials are being developed at an increasing rate. These materials are often referred to as advanced materials (AdMs) and they enable technological innovations that can benefit society. Despite their benefits, however, the unique characteristics of many AdMs, including many nanomaterials, are poorly understood and may pose environmental safety and occupational health (ESOH) risks that are not readily determined by traditional risk assessment methods. To assess these risks while keeping up with the pace of development, technology developers and risk assessors frequently employ risk-screening methods that depend on a clear definition for the materials that are to be assessed (e.g., engineered nanomaterial) as well as a method for binning materials into categories for ESOH risk prioritization. The term advanced material lacks a consensus definition and associated categorization or grouping system for risk screening. In this study, we aim to establish a practitioner-driven definition for AdMs and a practitioner-validated framework for categorizing AdMs into conceptual groupings based on material characteristics. Results from multiple workshops and interviews with practitioners provide consistent differentiation between AdMs and conventional materials, offer functional nomenclature for application science, and provide utility for future ESOH risk assessment prioritization. The definition and categorization framework established here serve as a first step in determining if and when there is a need for specific ESOH and regulatory screening for an AdM as well as the type and extent of risk-related information that should be collected or generated for AdMs and AdM-enabled technologies.

Nanotechnology, neuromodulation & the immune response: discourse, materiality & ethics

Drawing upon the American Pragmatic tradition in philosophy and the more recent work of philosopher Karen Barad, this paper examines how scientific problems are both obscured, and resolved by our use of language describing the natural world. Using the example of the immune response engendered by neural implants inserted in the brain, the author explains how this discourse has been altered by the advent of nanotechnology methods and devices which offer putative remedies that might temper the immune response in the central nervous system. This emergent nanotechnology has altered this problem space and catalyzed one scientific community to acknowledge a material reality that was always present, if not fully acknowledged.

Precautionary discourse. Thinking through the distinction between the precautionary principle and the precautionary approach in theory and practice

This paper addresses the distinction, arising from the different ways the European Union and United States have come to adopt precaution regarding various environmental and health-related risks, between the precautionary principle and the precautionary approach in both theory and practice. First, this paper addresses how the precautionary principle has been variously defined, along with an exploration of some of the concepts with which it has been associated. Next, it addresses how the distinction between the precautionary principle and precautionary approach manifested itself within the political realm. Last, it considers the theoretical foundation of the precautionary principle in the philosophy of Hans Jonas, considering whether the principled-pragmatic distinction regarding precaution does or doesn't hold up in Jonas' thought.

Should the precautionary principle guide our actions or our beliefs?

Two interpretations of the precautionary principle are considered. According to the normative (action-guiding) interpretation, the precautionary principle should be characterised in terms of what it urges doctors and other decision makers to do. According to the epistemic (belief-guiding) interpretation, the precautionary principle should be characterised in terms of what it urges us to believe. This paper recommends against the use of the precautionary principle as a decision rule in medical decision making, based on an impossibility theorem presented in Peterson (2005). However, the main point of the paper is an argument to the effect that decision theoretical problems associated with the precautionary principle can be overcome by paying greater attention to its epistemic dimension. Three epistemic principles inherent in a precautionary approach to medical risk analysis are characterised and defended.