Search

The Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) is an important tool for biological invasion policy and management and has been adopted as an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) standard to measure the severity of environmental impacts caused by organisms living outside their native ranges. EICAT has already been incorporated into some national and local decision‐making procedures, making it a particularly relevant resource for addressing the impact of non‐native species. Recently, some of the underlying conceptual principles of EICAT, particularly those related to the use of the precautionary approach, have been challenged. Although still relatively new, guidelines for the application and interpretation of EICAT will be periodically revisited by the IUCN community, based on scientific evidence, to improve the process. Some of the criticisms recently raised are based on subjectively selected assumptions that cannot be generalized and may harm global efforts to manage biological invasions. EICAT adopts a precautionary principle by considering a species' impact history elsewhere because some taxa have traits that can make them inherently more harmful. Furthermore, non‐native species are often important drivers of biodiversity loss even in the presence of other pressures. Ignoring the precautionary principle when tackling the impacts of non‐native species has led to devastating consequences for human well‐being, biodiversity, and ecosystems, as well as poor management outcomes, and thus to significant economic costs. EICAT is a relevant tool because it supports prioritization and management of non‐native species and meeting and monitoring progress toward the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) Target 6. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Risk management decisions in public health require consideration of a number of complex, often conflicting factors. The aim of this review was to propose a set of 10 fundamental principles to guide risk decision-making. Although each of these principles is sound in its own right, the guidance provided by different principles might lead the decision-maker in different directions. For example, where the precautionary principle advocates for preemptive risk management action under situations of scientific uncertainty and potentially catastrophic consequences, the principle of risk-based decision-making encourages decision-makers to focus on established and modifiable risks, where a return on the investment in risk management is all but guaranteed in the near term. To evaluate the applicability of the 10 principles in practice, one needs to consider 10 diverse risk issues of broad concern and explore which of these principles are most appropriate in different contexts. The 10 principles presented here afford substantive insight into the process of risk management decision-making, although decision-makers will ultimately need to exercise judgment in reaching appropriate risk decisions, accounting for all of the scientific and extra-scientific factors relevant to the risk decision at hand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources is responsible for managing human activities in the Southern Ocean. The Convention's Commission meets annually to determine management decisions to deliver the Convention's objective of conservation of Antarctic marine living resources (including rational use). Members are required to base these decisions on the 'best available scientific advice', meaning the best scientific information available at the time. Applied correctly this approach is an effective way to implement the precautionary approach required by the Convention. This paper reviews the Commission's responses to the Scientific Committee's recommendations, to assess the extent to which it has used best available scientific information in its decision making. It concludes that since 1990, there has been a consistently high uptake of 'best available science' by the Commission, particularly for general fisheries regulation and specific finfish fisheries, and that progress is steady on the implementation of long-term krill management. However, there are inconsistencies in the approach to the application of 'best available science' for issues that extend outside explicit fisheries management. Without embracing its obligation to consistently use best available science across all management and conservation responsibilities, the Commission will face challenges in effectively delivering the Convention's objective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The precautionary principle is often invoked in relation to pregnant women and may be one of the underlying reasons for their continuous underrepresentation in clinical research. The principle is appealing, because potential fetal harm as a result of research participation is considered to be serious and irreversible. In our paper, we explore through conceptual analysis whether and if so how the precautionary principle should apply to pregnant women. We argue that the principle is a decision-making strategy underlying risk-benefit decisions in clinical research, which can be applied to pregnant women. However, the current application is a strong one, leading to the promotion of absolute exclusion or, less often, absolute inclusion of pregnant women. In order to change this paralyzing situation, a shift toward weak precautionary thinking is necessary. Instead of automatic extreme precaution, a balance will be found between harms and potential benefits of including pregnant women in clinical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objective: Donor selection criteria (DSC) are a vital link in the chain of supply of Substances of Human Origin (SoHO) but are also subject to controversy and differences of opinion. Traditionally, DSC have been based on application of the precautionary principle. Materials and methods: From 2017 to 2020, TRANSPOSE (TRANSfusion and transplantation PrOtection and SElection of donors), a European research project, aimed to identify discrepancies between current DSC by proposing a standardized risk assessment method for all SoHO (solid organs excluded) and all levels of evidence. Results: The current DSC were assessed using a modified risk assessment method based on the Alliance of Blood Operators' Risk‐based decision‐making framework for blood safety. It was found that with limited or diverging scientific evidence, it was difficult to reach consensus and an international standardized method for decision‐making was lacking. Furthermore, participants found it hard to disregard their local guidelines when providing expert opinion, which resulted in substantial influence on the consensus‐based decision‐making process. Conclusions: While the field of donation‐safety research is expanding rapidly, there is an urgent need to formalize the decision‐making process regarding DSC. This includes the need for standardized methods to increase transparency in the international decision‐making process and to ensure that this is performed consistently. Our framework provides an easy‐to‐implement approach for standardizing risk assessments, especially in the context of limited scientific evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The precautionary principle aims to influence decision‐making in contexts where some activity poses uncertain but potentially grave threats. This perfectly describes the controversy surrounding germline gene editing. This article considers whether the precautionary principle should influence how we weigh the risks and benefits of human germline interventions, focusing especially on the possible threats to the health of future generations. We distinguish between several existing forms of the precautionary principle, assess their plausibility and consider their implications for the ethics of germline modification. We also offer a novel form of the precautionary principle: the sufficientarian precautionary principle. Some plausible versions of the precautionary principle recommend placing somewhat greater weight on avoiding threats to future generations than on achieving short‐term benefits. However, no plausible versions of the precautionary principle entail that we should outright reject the use germline gene editing in human reproduction and some, such as the sufficientarian version, might endorse its use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In view of the global and long-term nature of the cause of environmental protection, the precautionary principle retains its topically, despite the fact that it was originally formulated about five decades ago. Like the majority of principles, this one too stands attractive but is also rather general. The article is an attempt at analysing specifically its practical realization following the example of the GMO environmental policy in the EU and Bulgaria, and their built-in aspects of effectiveness and justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is enjoying another of its periodic surges in popularity. To the extent that the current promises are fulfilled, AI may deliver considerable benefits. Whether or not it does so, however, AI harbours substantial threats. The first article in this series examined those threats. The second article presented a set of Principles and a business process whereby organisations can approach AI in a responsible manner. Given how impactful AI is expected to be, and the very low likelihood that all organisations will act responsibly, it is essential that an appropriate regulatory regime be applied to AI. This article reviews key regulatory concepts, and considers each of the various forms that regulatory schemes can take. Given the technical and political complexities and the intensity of the threats, co-regulation is proposed as the most appropriate approach. This involves the establishment of a legislated framework with several key features. The parliament needs to declare the requirements, the enforcement processes and sanctions, and allocate the powers and responsibilities to appropriate regulatory agencies. In addition, it delegates the development and maintenance of the detailed obligations to an independent body, comprising representatives of all stakeholder groups, including the various categories of the affected public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The paper provides an enhanced understanding of the rationale of the PP. • And of the relationship between the precautionary principle and decision analysis. • And how the saying "better safe than sorry" relates to the precautionary principle. • New knowledge is obtained by taking a risk and safety science perspective. The precautionary principle is strongly debated as a policy for handling risk and safety concerns. It is commonly claimed that the principle is paralyzing, unscientific and promotes a culture of irrational fear. The risk and safety literature contains considerable work providing support for such claims but also argumentation backing the principle. The present paper aims at contributing to this discussion by investigating the principle in view of what is here referred to as contemporary risk and safety science. Common beliefs about the principle are revisited. New insights are obtained by clarifying the risk and safety fundamentals necessary to understand the principle's motivation, applicability and limitations. The paper concludes that the precautionary principle is only relevant when the uncertainties and risks are considerable and scientific. Confusion arises, as the principle is mixed with the basic idea of risk management to give weight to uncertainties, in order to prudently handle risk. Properly understood and implemented, the precautionary principle can be aligned with decision analysis and other scientific methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shift work (working outside of 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM) is a fixture of our 24-hour economy, with approximately 18 per cent of workers in the USA engaging in shift work, many overnight. Since shift work has been linked to an increased risk for an array of serious maladies, including cardiometabolic disorders and cancer, and is done disproportionately by the poor and by minorities, shift work is a highly prevalent economic and occupational health disparity. Here we draw primarily on the state of science around shift work and breast cancer to argue that shift work represents a public health threat serious enough to warrant a precautionary stance. We use the precautionary principle to advance our case and view it as a moral compass for shift work research, empowering public health to cast shift work within the domain of health disparities deserving action despite scientific uncertainty. With the precautionary principle, we call for a deliberative decision-making process and formation of a broad shift work research collaboration to protect the health of many millions who work at night. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify the corporate political activity (CPA) of major food industry actors in France.Design: We followed an approach based on information available in the public domain. Different sources of information, freely accessible to the public, were monitored.Setting/SubjectsData were collected and analysed between March and August 2015. Five actors were selected: ANIA (Association Nationale des Industries Agroalimentaires/National Association of Agribusiness Industries); Coca-Cola; McDonald's; Nestlé; and Carrefour.Results: Our analysis shows that the main practices used by Coca-Cola and McDonald's were the framing of diet and public health issues in ways favourable to the company, and their involvement in the community. ANIA primarily used the 'information and messaging' strategy (e.g. by promoting deregulation and shaping the evidence base on diet- and public health-related issues), as well as the 'policy substitution' strategy. Nestlé framed diet and public health issues, and shaped the evidence base on diet- and public health-related issues. Carrefour particularly sought involvement in the community.Conclusions: We found that, in 2015, the food industry in France was using CPA practices that were also used by other industries in the past, such as the tobacco and alcohol industries. Because most, if not all, of these practices proved detrimental to public health when used by the tobacco industry, we propose that the precautionary principle should guide decisions when engaging or interacting with the food industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a significant gap between the safety management in the Chinese colleges and many renowned colleges in other countries. The subject of this study is how to assess the performance of health, safety, and environment (HSE) in Chinese college laboratories. The assessment system is established by three parts. First of all, HSE performance assessment indicators for laboratories in Chinese colleges are identified based on the previous studies. Then set valued iteration is used to calculate the weights of the various indicators. Following that, multiple attribute group decision-making (MAGDM) method with Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic operators is used to assess the laboratory HSE performance in colleges. Finally, taking a college in Sichuan Province as an example, the proposed method is used to assess the laboratory HSE performance. The assessment result shows that the proposed method used in this study is practical and feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do policy‐makers call shots on major decisions—such as putting a country into lockdown to mitigate the risk of Covid‐19—when they don't have all the scientific facts about how the virus spreads? And to which moral values do they appeal when weighing the health and economic risks involved? David B. Resnik addresses such questions in his book Precautionary Reasoning in Environmental and Public Health Policy (Springer, 2021), which provides a fresh perspective on the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle captures the common intuition "better safe than sorry" but is also a contentious facet of precautionary reasoning. Resnik's novel approach to the precautionary principle and detailed discussion of moral values makes this book an excellent read for anyone interested in policy‐making, philosophy, or public health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we examine how park and protected area managers and scholars might respond to the attempted undoing of human-induced climate change. Drawing from Michael Lewis' The Undoing Project (2017), we proceed from the assumption that we humans are prone to make mistakes in our assessments of what is and what is not the case when reaching conclusions about complex environmental problems. We reason further that the consequences of making certain kinds of mistakes should be taken into account when shaping management policy, specifically surrounding climate change. We then illustrate how Type 1 and Type 2 errors might serve as useful lenses to better envision how to manage risk in times of uncertainty by applying them to the real or imagined nature of human-induced climate change. We also consider the likely consequences of making Type 1 and Type 2 errors regarding climate change decision-making. Finally, we discuss what we believe is the preferred error to make when thinking about human-induced climate change with regard to the management of parks and protected areas, as well as the implications for individuals and society at large. In so doing, we turn what is commonly referred to as 'liberal' and 'conservative' thinking inside out, and leave the reader with the question of just who are the conservatives and who are the liberals when thinking about the prospect of undoing human-induced climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Precautionary Principles are often said to be appropriate for decision-making in contexts of uncertainty such as climate policy. Contexts of uncertainty are contrasted to contexts of risk depending on whether we have probabilities or not. Against this view, I argue that the risk-uncertainty distinction is practically irrelevant. I start by noting that the history of the distinction between risk and uncertainty is more varied than is sometimes assumed. In order to examine the distinction, I unpack the idea of having probabilities, in particular by distinguishing three interpretations of probability: objective, epistemic, and subjective probability. I then claim that if we are concerned with whether we have probabilities at all-regardless of how low their epistemic credentials are-then we almost always have probabilities for policy-making. The reason is that subjective and epistemic probability are the relevant interpretations of probability and we almost always have subjective and epistemic probabilities. In contrast, if we are only concerned with probabilities that have sufficiently high epistemic credentials, then we obviously do not always have probabilities. Climate policy, for example, would then be a case of decision-making under uncertainty. But, so I argue, we should not dismiss probabilities with low epistemic credentials. Rather, when they are the best available probabilities our decision principles should make use of them. And, since they are almost always available, the risk-uncertainty distinction remains irrelevant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the low iron stores in younger donors, especially females, and using population-based metrics to document the prevalence of low iron in donors and the general population. It mentions frequent blood donation lowers iron stores, that young donors have a higher baseline prevalence of low or absent iron stores; and also mentions the risk and impact of low iron states in blood donors.

• Environmental variability and high motility are a challenge to get real absences. • We used 20 virtual species to study different kinds of absences effects on ENMs. • A very intense sampling would be needed to obtain a genuine unbiased absences. • For highly mobile species better to consider the non-observation as background info. Species distribution models are valuable tools for conservation management. However, there remain challenges in developing and interpreting these models in the marine environment, such as the nature of the species used for the modelling process. When working with mobile species in dynamic environments, lack of observation is usually interpreted as an observation of absence, which can result in the introduction of biases by methodological (false) absences. Here, we explore the role of absences when modelling marine megafauna distributions. To better understand how the use of absences (or equivalent) affects the niche modelling algorithms, we used a set of 20 virtual species with different relations to the habitat (generalist static, specialist static, generalist dynamic and specialist dynamic) with different encounter rates. We tested six different modelling techniques divided into three distinct groups: presence-only, presence-background and presence-absence. We compared the outputs of the models using traditional validation metrics and overlap metrics in the geographical and environmental spaces. Algorithms characterized the ecological niche for the simulated species differently. Approaches using background data generally outperformed the other methods, suggesting that the non-observation of a species in a given location and time should not be considered as an absence. A very intense (practically unrealistic) sampling schema would be required to obtain a genuine unbiased absence when working with these species and habitats. For highly mobile species, a precautionary approach would be to consider the non-observation of a species as part of the background (a sample of the conditions available in the study area) rather than an absence. A good starting point would be to use presence-background models, complemented with presence-absence and/or presence-only models, comparing outputs from the different algorithms tested in the geographic and environmental space. Improving model performance for highly mobile marine species should lead to better-informed decision making for conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Precautionary Principle is both celebrated and criticized. It has become an important principle for decision making, but it is also subject to criticism. One problem that is often pointed out with the principle is that is not clear what it actually says and how to use it. I have taken on this problem by performing an analysis of some of the most influential formulations of the principle in an attempt to identify the core ideas behind it, with the purpose of producing a formulation of the principle that is clear and practically applicable. It was found that what is called the Precautionary Principle is not a principle that tells us what do to achieve extra precaution or how to handle situations when extra precaution is called for. Instead, it was found to be a list of circumstances that each justify extra precaution. An analysis of some of the most common and influential formulations of the Precautionary Principle identified four such circumstances: (1) When we deal with important values that tend to be systematically downplayed by traditional decision methods – such as human health and the environment. (2) When we suspect that the decision might lead to irreversible and severe consequences and the values at stake are also irreplaceable, (3) When timing is at least as important as being right. (4) When it is more important to avoid false negatives than false positives. This interpretation of the Precautionary Principle does not say anything about what kind of actions to take when extra precaution is called for, but it does provide a clear and practically useful list of circumstances that call for extra precaution and that is not subject to the most common objections to the Precautionary Principle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A common strategy in bioethics is to posit a prima facie case in favour of one policy, and to then claim that the burden of proof (that this policy should be rejected) falls on those with opposing views. If the burden of proof is not met, it is claimed, then the policy in question should be accepted. This article illustrates, and critically evaluates, examples of this strategy in debates about the sale of organs by living donors, human enhancement, and the precautionary principle. We highlight general problems with this style of argument, and particular problems with its use in specific cases. We conclude that the burden ultimately falls on decision-makers (i.e. policy-makers) to choose the policy supported by the best reasons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented which discusses the study regarding the precautionary principles in massive transfusion protocols (MTPs) for trauma patients. It mentions the survey stating that trauma centers in the U.S. are maintaining thawed group A plasma to supplement AB plasma to be use as the initial resuscitation of trauma patients whose ABO status is unknown. It also expreses the public health issue within the transfusion community.

Artist Ena Swansea paints a provocative paradox in "One" from her "4 Seasons" quadtych: Is the child in the bathtub playfully holding a bubble, the orb of our global commons, or a crystal ball that portends an ominous future? As the viewer is confronted with the image of a child who, in the middle of an ordinary daily routine, is up to his armpits in a pool of blood red water, the question of water toxicity becomes central in the painting. Working from that image, this paper explores the interaction between water toxicity and Trisomy 21, proposing the need for a "precautionary principle" to guide decision making. The rationale for that principle is developed here through a study of communities with heightened links between water toxicity and Trisomy 21, a deepened theology of water across worldviews drawing on the work of John Hart's Sacramental Commons, and a proposed model for "eco-social disability." Because scientific studies linking toxic water and Trisomy 21 are inconclusive, the precautionary principle serves as a guide to prevent the potential disabling effects of toxic water causing unjust generation of disablement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ediotor focuses on study conducted by the researcher T.S. Rector on threats of precautionary principle including risk management and unintended consequences. Topics discussed include requirement to watch out unintended consequences of treatment as well as initiatives to avoid the same, determination of patient with dose-dependent QT interval prolongation by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration and absence of adequate information and adherence to the precautionary principle may lead to harms.

The article discusses about using the cost-benefit reasoning method for decision making as a framework for simplifying complex problems. Topics include using precautionary principle, and the issues of risk and uncertainty. The example of using genetically modified organisms for food production is also mentioned.