Published : Jan 23,
2013 Last modified : Jan 23, 2013 09:52
AM
New technologies have sometimes had very
harmful effects, but in many cases the early
warning signs have been suppressed or ignored.
The second volume of Late Lessons from Early
Warnings investigates specific cases where
danger signals have gone unheeded, in some
cases leading to deaths, illness and environmental
destruction.
The first volume of
Late Lessons, published in 2001, was a ground
breaking report detailing the history of
technologies subsequently found to be harmful.
The new 1000-page volume includes 20 new
case studies, with far-reaching implications
for policy, science and society.
Case studies include the stories behind
industrial mercury poisoning; fertility
problems caused by pesticides; hormone-disrupting
chemicals in common plastics; and pharmaceuticals
that are changing ecosystems. The report
also considers the warning signs emerging
from technologies currently in use, including
mobile phones, genetically modified organisms
and nanotechnology.
The historical case studies show that warnings
were ignored or sidelined until damage to
health and the environment was inevitable.
In some instances, companies put short-term
profits ahead of public safety, either hiding
or ignoring the evidence of risk. In others,
scientists downplayed risks, sometimes under
pressure from vested interests. Such lessons
could help avoid harm from emerging technologies.
However, five of the stories illustrate
the benefits of quickly responding to early
warnings.
The world has changed since the first volume
of Late Lessons was published. Technologies
are now taken up more quickly than before,
and are often rapidly adopted around the
world. This means risks may spread faster
and further, the report says, outstripping
society’s capacity to understand, recognise
and respond to these effects in time to
avoid harm.
The report recommends the wider use of the
‘precautionary principle’ to reduce hazards
in cases of new and largely untested technologies
and chemicals. It states that scientific
uncertainty is not a justification for inaction,
when there is plausible evidence of potentially
serious harm.
Such a precautionary approach is nearly
always beneficial – after analysing 88 cases
of supposed ‘false alarm’, report authors
found only four clear cases. The report
also shows that precautionary actions can
often stimulate rather than stifle innovation.
Key recommendations
Science should acknowledge the complexity
of biological and environmental systems,
particularly where there may be multiple
causes of many different effects, the report
says. It is increasingly difficult to isolate
a single agent and prove beyond doubt that
it causes harm. A more holistic view taking
many different disciplines into account
would also improve the understanding and
prevention of potential hazards.
Policy makers should respond to early warnings
more rapidly, the report says, particularly
in cases of large scale emerging technologies.
It proposes that those causing any future
harm should pay for the damage.
Risk assessment can also be improved, the
report says, by embracing uncertainty more
broadly and acknowledging what is not known.
For example, ‘No evidence of harm’ has often
been often misinterpreted to mean ‘evidence
of no harm’ when the relevant research was
not available.
The report calls for new forms of governance
involving citizens in choices about innovation
pathways and risk analysis. This would help
to reduce exposure to hazards and encourage
innovations with broader societal benefits.
Greater interaction between business, governments
and citizens could foster more robust and
diverse innovations at less cost to health
and the environment.
