Environmental and
technology ethics
Uncertainty, risk and precaution
GMOs;
The areas of ethical concern

Consequences for the welfare of humans, animals
and the environment


Social and economic consequences



Uncertainty and potential irreversibility
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

Anne Ingeborg Myhr
2005, Hamburg workshop
NUSAP versus W&H
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…...

Anne Ingeborg Myhr
2005, Hamburg workshop