University of Stavanger, Norway.
Risk Anal. 2011 Oct;31(10):1515-25. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01612.x. Epub 2011 Apr 7.
Few policies for risk management have created more controversy than the precautionary principle. A main problem is the extreme number of different definitions and interpretations. Almost all definitions of the precautionary principle identify "scientific uncertainties" as the trigger or criterion for its invocation; however, the meaning of this concept is not clear. For applying the precautionary principle it is not sufficient that the threats or hazards are uncertain. A stronger requirement is needed. This article provides an in-depth analysis of this issue. We question how the scientific uncertainties are linked to the interpretation of the probability concept, expected values, the results from probabilistic risk assessments, the common distinction between aleatory uncertainties and epistemic uncertainties, and the problem of establishing an accurate prediction model (cause-effect relationship). A new classification structure is suggested to define what scientific uncertainties mean.
几乎没有哪项风险管理政策像预防性原则那样引起了如此多的争议。一个主要问题是，对于该原则有着极端数量的不同定义和解释。几乎所有对预防性原则的定义都将“科学不确定性”作为其启动或援引的触发因素或标准；然而，这个概念的含义并不明确。对于应用预防性原则来说，仅仅威胁或危害不确定是不够的。需要更强有力的要求。本文对这一问题进行了深入分析。我们质疑科学不确定性如何与概率概念的解释、期望值、概率风险评估的结果、偶然不确定性和认知不确定性之间的常见区别以及建立准确预测模型（因果关系）的问题联系起来。本文建议了一种新的分类结构来定义科学不确定性的含义。
