I have had the privilege of working with the precautionary principle for more than three years. It has been a large, communal effort with many of you playing a significant role in advancing the ideas forward. The activists who got the Los Angeles Unified School District to adopt the principle with respect to pesticides, those working on envisioning how it might apply to the San Francisco area, Breast cancer activists who are invoking the principle in their attempt to bring together the environmental and public health communities. You are heroes. I am so grateful to you.
I work for the Science and Environmental Health Network which was set up to serve you. One of our functions is as a think tank - to develop the rich, robust ideas with you that we need in order to ensure that we use science and ethics to protect children, seeds, -- indeed all living things.
So I would like to invite you into our most recent conversations exploring the precautionary principle. We would love to dialogue with you and see if we are heading in the right direction and how you see, hear and feel these ideas.
Frankly, I haven't taken criticism of the precautionary principle very seriously. It seems unassailable if you've got a heart and mind. Who can oppose taking action to prevent harm when the science is uncertain? Who can oppose goal setting, performance bonds, alternatives assessment, democratic participation, reversing the burden of proof, a general duty to act with precaution etc?
Well we've had a little voice, even on our staff that said, "but this isn't enough." WHAT isn't enough, I would think? And Mary O'Brien would say, what about restoration? Isn't the precautionary principle really negative? How do we factor in positive action? And the right answer was not, what side are you on Mary? Because nobody loves this planet more than she does. Besides, my husband Fred Kirschenmann agreed with her, even at the Wingspread Conference where we began our work on the precautionary principle.
So I would ask, are there other principles?
Yes, the Germans who developed the idea of precaution, Vorsorge, have five principles of which the precautionary principle is only one. Is what we are talking about one of those principles? Maybe. That's another discussion.
But our staff returned to the precautionary principle. In the middle of the last staff meeting our Communications Director, Nancy Myers launched into a jazz-like riff interpreting the German word Vorsorge into English. She said, at one point it means "forecaring". I think Katherine Barrett, another staff member said the words at the very same time. As soon as Nancy said the word "forecaring" Mary and Ted Schettler's faces were literally filled with light from the joy of this idea. The Germans use it in the sense of preparing for what may be a difficult future. I understand this living in North Dakota. In September I am vigorously preparing for winter. Splitting enough wood for the wood stove, canning the last corn relish and freezing kale and watermelon.
We at SEHN believe that the idea of forecaring as deeply embedded in the precautionary principle provides a whole new pantry of thought that can infuse our work with hope.
I would submit to you that forecaring carries with it three important concepts.
First, forecaring allows us to take positive, affirmative action to protect future generations of whales, humans, redwoods. This dovetails beautifully with the precautionary ideas of stopping damage before we know for sure all of the dimensions of that damage.
Second, forecaring, carries with it the concept of prediction - a fundamental task of precautionary science. This moves science to the frontier of the philosophy of science. Science has been good at description but rarely at prediction. But this is exactly what we need when we examine large systems over long time frames. So science is going to have to grow up beyond the limited confines of DesCartes, Bacon, Occam, EPA, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Third, forecaring, makes explicit the ethical underpinnings of the precautionary principle. Accordingly, for the first time since Occam, a Medieval Theologian who split off everything except the most rudimentary facts from explanations, we have the enormous and exciting task of putting ethics and science back together as one unified discipline. You may have heard of Occam whose famous Occam's razor says that you always choose the simplest explanation for any occurrence. Well the simplest explanation generally leaves out ethics, economic irrationality, love -- all of those things that motivate humanity and are at play in ecosystems.
What does all of this mean for our work? I would offer you my musings.
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **
Last Updated on 10/9/00