Saltelli Andrea, Funtowicz Silvio
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, Ispra, VA, Italy.
Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2004;17(1):47-57.
The European Commission has published a Communication on the Precautionary Principle and a White Book on Governance. These provide us (as research civil servants of the Commission) an institutional framework for handling scientific information that is often incomplete, uncertain, and contested. But, although the Precautionary Principle is intuitively straightforward to understand, there is no agreed way of applying it to real decision-making. To meet this perceived need, researchers have proposed a vast number of taxonomies. These include ignorance auditing, type one-two-three errors, a combination of uncertainty and decision stakes through post-normal science and the plotting of ignorance of probabilities against ignorance of consequences. Any of these could be used to define a precautionary principle region inside a multidimensional space and to position an issue within that region. The role of anticipatory research is clearly critical but scientific input is only part of the picture. It is difficult to imagine an issue where the application of the Precautionary Principle would be non-contentious. From genetically-modified food to electro-smog, from climate change to hormone growth in meat, it is clear that: 1) risk and cost-benefit are only part of the picture; 2) there are ethical issues involved; 3) there is a plurality of interests and perspectives that are often in conflict; 4) there will be losers and winners whatever decision is made. Operationalization of the Precautionary Principle must preserve transparency. Only in this way will the incommensurable costs and benefits associated with different stakeholders be registered. A typical decision will include the following sorts of considerations: 1) the commercial interests of companies and the communities that depend on them; 2) the worldviews of those who might want a greener, less consumerist society and/or who believe in the sanctity of human or animal life; 3) potential benefits such as enabling the world's poor to improve farming; 4) risks such as pollution, gene-flow, or the effects of climate change. In this paper we will discuss the use of a combination of methods on which we have worked and that we consider useful to frame the debate and facilitate the dialogue among stakeholders on where and how to apply the Precautionary Principle.
欧盟委员会发布了一份关于预防原则的通报以及一本关于治理的白皮书。这些为我们（作为委员会的科研公务员）提供了一个处理往往不完整、不确定且存在争议的科学信息的制度框架。但是，尽管预防原则在直观上易于理解，却没有一致认可的将其应用于实际决策的方法。为满足这一明显的需求，研究人员提出了大量的分类法。这些分类法包括无知审计、一至三类错误、通过后常规科学将不确定性与决策利害关系相结合，以及绘制概率无知与后果无知的关系图。这些分类法中的任何一种都可用于在多维空间内定义一个预防原则区域，并将某个问题置于该区域内。前瞻性研究的作用显然至关重要，但科学投入只是其中一部分。很难想象在哪个问题上应用预防原则不会引起争议。从转基因食品到电子烟雾，从气候变化到肉类中的激素生长，很明显：1）风险和成本效益只是其中一部分；2）涉及伦理问题；3）存在多种往往相互冲突的利益和观点；4）无论做出何种决策都会有输家和赢家。预防原则的实施必须保持透明度。只有这样，与不同利益相关者相关的不可通约的成本和效益才能被记录下来。一个典型的决策将包括以下各类考虑因素：1）公司以及依赖它们的社区的商业利益；2）那些可能希望建立一个更绿色、消费主义色彩更淡的社会和/或相信人类或动物生命神圣不可侵犯的人的世界观；3）潜在利益，如使世界上的贫困人口能够改善农业生产；4）风险，如污染、基因流动或气候变化的影响。在本文中，我们将讨论我们所采用并认为有助于构建辩论并促进利益相关者就预防原则的应用地点和方式进行对话的多种方法的结合使用。
