Environmental and technology ethics Uncertainty, risk and precaution

Anne Ingeborg Myhr 2005, Hamburg workshop GMOs; The areas of ethical concern  Consequences for the welfare of humans, animals and the environment Uncertainty and potential irreversibility  Social and economic consequences Contribution to sustainable development? Wider and equal consideration of benefits and risks  Implications for the responsibility of scientists Acknowlegdement of uncertainty Conflict of interest

Anne Ingeborg Myhr 2005, Hamburg workshop Case study; GMOs  Main assumptions; Initiatives to approach risk-associated hypotheses are badly needed. Present risk and safety assessment is too narrow to cope adequately with risk. The PP is needed in risk governance. There is a need to address the importance of the scientists´ responsibility. Extended peer communities is needed.

Anne Ingeborg Myhr 2005, Hamburg workshop The relevance of the PP  In the preamble of the Norwegian Gene Technology Act (1993)  In the new EU directive on deliberate release of GMO (2001/18/EC)  The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000)  Communication from the EU commission (2000)  PP is one of the centrale principles of ”sustainability”

Anne Ingeborg Myhr 2005, Hamburg workshop The PP applied to GMOs  Scientific evidence/reasonable ground for concern At present there are low certainty and low consensus Scientists disagree Different framings of the studies and choices of methods Significance of low probability events Potential hazards related to lack of gene targeting, to gene transfer from GMOs and of secondary effects How to handle early-warnings? Different interpretation about the relevance of the ecological impacts and on the research needed

Anne Ingeborg Myhr 2005, Hamburg workshop The PP applied to GMOs  Scientific evidence is a qualitative term which may cause problems; Determines the boundaries of risk window Underplay uncertainty Hides away alternative scenarios Scales down the complexity to manageable proportions?  Reasonable ground for concern involves scientific based concerns, but do also raise problems; How to differ between speculations and scientifically based concerns / plausible hypothesis?

Anne Ingeborg Myhr 2005, Hamburg workshop Identify threats of harm  EU; env. RA is on direct and indirect effects, immediate, delayed effects, cumulative, long term effects  Cartagena protocol; to protect and conserve biodiversity  NGT; harm to health and environment, sustainability, ethical and societal aspects  Lack of definition of terms  Who should be involved in defining harm?

Anne Ingeborg Myhr 2005, Hamburg workshop Identify threats of harm  Protection of the environment may serve different purposes Antropocentric /ecocentric context  How to prioritise between values? The value of nature Economic growth versus saving species No greater harm than conv. agri./ organic  How to define unanticipated effects? Not considereded in the RA Not based on hypothesis -involves observation?

Anne Ingeborg Myhr 2005, Hamburg workshop The burden of proof  Is shifted to the proponent / developer / notifier  But need maybe to be further improved Peer-review by experts Testing by independent research institutions Proactive / Safety first initiatives that involves identification of risk aspects by involving stakeholders Feedback process that influences the frames and scope of research

Anne Ingeborg Myhr 2005, Hamburg workshop The role of science  Context generates risk? Resarch inititated depends on what effects are important to detect The null hypothesis and the framework problem Snowdrop lectin, the monarch, UK farmland trials?  Complicated versus complexity Systemthinking / a gene ecology perspective Uncertainty analyses NUSAP versus W&H

Anne Ingeborg Myhr 2005, Hamburg workshop Conclusion (?)  Many problems -few answers  Need of a more precautionary motivated science? Influence the choice of hypothesis and methods Broad problem framing Acknowledge risk, uncertainty and complexity Examination of alternatives to reach the same goals ………………etc…...