Should "Better Safe than Sorry" Guide Our Public Policy?
May 31, 2011
It's better to be safe than sorry. We all accept this as a commonsense maxim. But can it also guide public policy? Advocates of the precautionary principle think so, and argue that formalizing a more "precautionary" approach to public health and environmental protection will better safeguard human well-being and the world around us. If only it were that easy, says Jonathan Adler, a professor and director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
Simply put, the precautionary principle is not a sound basis for public policy. At the broadest level of generality, the principle is unobjectionable, but it provides no meaningful guidance to pressing policy questions. In a public policy context, "better safe than sorry" is a fairly vacuous instruction. Taken literally, the precautionary principle is either wholly arbitrary or incoherent. In its stronger formulations, the principle actually has the potential to do harm.
- Efforts to operationalize the precautionary principle into public law will do little to enhance the protection of public health and the environment.
- The precautionary principle could even do more harm than good.
- Efforts to impose the principle through regulatory policy inevitably accommodate competing concerns or become a Trojan horse for other ideological crusades.
- When selectively applied to politically disfavored technologies and conduct, the precautionary principle is a barrier to technological development and economic growth.
Source: Jonathan Adler, "The Problems with Precaution: A Principle without Principle," The American, May 25, 2011.
Browse more articles on Government Issues