Question 5 Forum

Question 1:

The precautionary principle is about analyzing and acting to prevent any harm in certain situations where it is unknown if there is truly a threat or not. This is usually used in context of environmental or human health issues. Typically, this principle follows the action where the worst possible outcome is the least bad. Without any precedent or sufficient scientific evidence, decisions are mostly being made using risk assessment and the precautionary principle. Future issues like genetic modification are in need of some regulations before things can get worse. What are some ways we could regulate genetic modification in the future? Does genetic modification really need the precautionary principle? Do you think the prospect of us being safe rather than sorry outweigh the potential benefits of genetic modification? -Michael Velle

Question 2:

The two principles- precautionary and procationary - go against each other in a couple of different ways. In the Procautionary Article, they stated that "The stronger version...  calls for precautionary measures even when the possible harm is not a serious or irreversible one." It also stated that " Activists get away with the burden of proof trick by managing perceptions of risk instead of examining the real risks. This move is particularly dangerous because we have limited resources to address a multitude of risks.
We cannot afford to make decisions driven by manipulated perceptions. It’s crucial that we rely on a comprehensive, scientifically grounded perspective when choosing which risks have the strongest claim on our attention." Do you think that there are specific industries where the precautionary principle should be utilized and others where the procautionary principle should be used? How would you categorize these industries? Do you think that strictly sticking to the numbers/science makes us less "human" because we are not adding our "manipulated perceptions"?- Neha Shah

Question 3

They stated "we already suffer from an undeveloped capacity for rational decision making." Do you think that this is due to the fact that we have used the precautionary principle in the past and believe that if we switched to the procautionary principle that this would change? Is our undeveloped capacity for rational decision making something that we never had, or is it something we had the potential to grow but with the addition of technological advances, we set it to the back burner and never looked at it again? - Neha Shah

Question 4:

 A weakness of the precautionary principle is the limitation it puts on innovation. In a world that already moves fast when it comes to technology, is regulation necessary to keep an eye on new technologies? The precautionary principle looks at regulation in a positive or neutral manner. The proactionary principle looks at regulation more negatively. Do you agree that regulation puts limits on innovation, or do you think regulation is necessary if we want to move forward. Is there a solution for this issue? -Nina Vernacchio

Question 5:

The second article on the Procautionary principle argues that "people lose an essential freedom" when the percautionary principle is put into play to "halt technological [and cultural] progress." Do you believe this to be the case? Take the situation with the genetic modification of our food sources: The jury is still out on whether GMOs contribute negatively to our health; however, they are becoming an increasingly larger part of our regular diets. Are consumer freedoms and interests infringed upon by the decision of large corporations to create and distribute these foods? It could be argued that the FDA takes the side of public interest in this case, but are they doing enough? 

On the other hand, it can take years for potentially life-saving new drugs and medical devices to clear the stringent tests and standards required by the FDA. (If you're interested in a movie involving this issue, watch Dallas Buyers Club.) In this case, there is a decidedly precautionary principle at play, requiring companies to prove their product safe for use in the general population before introducing it to the market. Overall, do you find yourself supporting this approach, or do you fall on the side which prioritizes innovation at the potential risk of our collective health and longevity? Do you think the burden of proof falls upon the innovator or the public who will eventually come to interact with their product? Is there a middle ground, and if so, where do you think it lies? -Patrick St. Pierre

Question 6:

If the precautionary principle had been applied to potential climate change say, 50 years ago, humanity may have been able to limit the damage done to the environment. On the other hand, if the precautionary principle had been applied to genetic modification of foods (GMOs) it is likely we would not have been able to meet our food requirements, and as a result people both in developed and developing worlds would have starved.

While both principles are generally at odds, which do you think should be applied when analyzing the hypothetical risks of A.I. intelligence and technological advances that may put humans at a disadvantage? Which of the principles do you think is currently being used in the tech industry, and should this change? - Kaitlyn Michaud

Response to question 1:

 Genetic modification is a real concern when considering the future. There is no doubt that things could get out of hand in this field without proper regulations restricting some unethical practices. Some ways that we can regulate genetic modification would be to pass laws restricting some types of modification that would specifically advantage wealthier people and disadvantage those who could not afford them. For example, it should not be legal to genetically enhance a child mentally or physically because only wealthier families would be able to afford it, and over time a physical gap between socioeconomic classes would grow. Another regulation would be to pass laws regarding cloning and other largely morally questionable modifications. As of now we don’t know everything scientifically, socially or morally to make the best judgements possible, so I believe it is necessary to apply the precautionary principle to this issue, after all it is better to be safe rather than sorry, even if it means limiting a possibly revolutionary movement in human history. There is no doubt that genetic modification could allow people to become more advanced versions of ourselves but at the same time, the consequences of such an action could have huge repercussions on society in the future. – Jake Hooper.

Response to question 4:

Though the precautionary principle emphasizes regulation and prudence when it comes to technological advancement, I do not believe it will limit innovation. Regulation is necessary to keep consumers safe and to limit exploitation of customers. True innovation, in my opinion, will succeed even if regulated. For example, genetic modification technology is on the up-and-up and I strongly believe that it must be regulated so that genetic modification doesn’t become a runaway train. Regulating the extent of genetic modification as well as defining what genes can be edited ensures that consumers do not face unwanted consequences of over-modification and unforeseen mutations. Furthermore, regulation does not hinder innovation as everyone is free to innovate in ways they seem fit, rather it protects consumers’ rights and safety. -Lakshya Ramani

Response to question 4:

I am not sure if it is a huge weakness of the precautionary principle, that it places limitations on innovation, after all that is its goal.  I think it is one of the criticisms of this model, which is used by those who really do seek to advance their technological goals. It is not only them however, this criticism comes several people who are waiting and waiting for a solution to their mental or physical health problems. They may be waiting for a technology that will save their lives, that will give them more time to care for their children, parents and other loved ones. This precautionary principle limits innovation, and can therefore limit the lives of several people. I do not think there is a set solution or mind set we can adopt that will limit catastrophe, because when we are limiting technology, we may be killing people who need it. But if we do not limit technology, then maybe it will cause even more harm future and kill several more people. Yes I do agree that regulation limits innovation, that is its purpose. However, I also think that there needs to be regulation if we want to move in a correct path. In other words, I don’t think there is a solution to this issue, I think we are moving at a very fast pace, and as frightening as it may be, I think all we can do is roll with punches and deal with innovation as they come. I really do not think that having one standard is the right way to move in this future, so maybe the best thing we can do is try to keep as many people up to date on what is going on. There is so much happening in todays world that still sounds like it is made up out of a science fiction novel, and this can lead to us not even brining up a serious discussion about new topics. I guess this is one possible solution, lets keep as many people involved as we can, and try to keep conversation happening. - Juan Hernandez

Response to question 3: The precautionary principle fears change and development. This principle suggest that we should stick to what we know and keep away from changes which have unpredictable outcomes or unknown consequences. I do not believe that this is the principle that has been used in the past for the society that we live in; at least, not in the (semi-short) history of America. People traveled to America, the “new world” having little idea what to expect at all. We had hopes of religious freedom and wealth, however, we did not under any circumstance know for certain that that is what we would receive by traveling here. I believe that we live in a very procautionary society, and we have for a long time now. The precautionary outlook views technology as our ally, it has a very positive view of technology and the advancements in development that it can provide for us, while weighing the  consequences with the benefits. I do not believe that we are just now switching to this view point, I believe that we have had this mindset for a very long time, and it is what has driven our innovation and quickly building infrastructure and life styles. Although humans have never been known to be the most rational decision makers, I believe that technology and artificial intelligence are part of the key to help us see what the rational decisions are and will influence us to become more developed in this way of thinking. I believe that by being surrounded by AI and computers, we will learn from them and they can help us see what is rational. Whether we listen to this input or not is up to us, but I do not think that we will simply use this technology as a crutch to further exercise our ignorance of rationality. - Joy Adler

Response to Question 4:

To a certain extent, regulation might stifle innovation, but from another perspective, I think that regulation is necessary. What good is it to have people die needlessly in the name of science and technology? That's not to say that if any project poses a risk, then it should be thrown out and banned entirely. Rather, it should be looked at in the lens that if accidents and mistakes are preventable, then the proper precaution should be taken to do so. And just because something sounds like it could be a good idea, one needs to consider the impact it will have on the environment and on society. Genetic engineering, for example, will create a giant disparity in ability and job availability for those that don't have the means to engineer themselves or their kids, thus increasing poverty rates. Unless this is an innovation that will be offered to everyone who wants it, then it should not be allowed. New products could (if not regulated) contribute to the change in climate by producing more CO2 in its use or manufacture. It could contribute to pollution, or its manufacture or use could pose significant and unnecessary health risks. That's when you have to ask, is the impact of this machine worth the risks it poses to the user and its surroundings? Does it do more harm than good? And just because we CAN doesn't necessarily mean we SHOULD. Technology is progress, yes, but it can also be a complication if not done correctly. It can become something that we regret, just like the manner in which we have come to regret the impact of plastic waste, or the effect of over farming and over production/consumption. The solution would be to mediate the negative aspects with the positive consequences. We shouldn't blindly step into research or creation of new technology without fully considering the implications and consequences our actions and products will have on the present and the future. We should stop thinking in terms of profit and short term goals, but rather the well-being of others and looking into the long-term future. - Daniela Gil

Response to question 1:

Genetic modification can have many great benefits to individual humans. It can allow us to stamp out diseases before a child is even born. However, I believe we cannot safely progress with this concept without considerable ethical consideration and scientific experimentation. Ethically, we must discuss the limitations we wish to place on genetic modification. While we may begin with only disease prevention, we could quickly alter this concept to include changing someone’s appearance and maybe even create humans built for only certain tasks. We shouldn’t be forcing our own dreams on our children, meaning if someone wanted to be a baseball player, they shouldn’t force their child into baseball simply because they didn’t have the skills. This same logic should be brought to the ethical question of genetically modifying someone to be superior at a certain task. We should follow the precautionary principle first in regard to the ethical questions that genetic modification raises. However, once these ethical questions have been answered, we could easily adopt the proactionary principle in regard to the scientific aspect of genetic modification. In order to destroy these diseases at the source, we need to act quickly before they become more engrained in modern society. This means taking, at sometimes, risky steps to achieve the final goal of absolute disease prevention. While there is the potential for death and accident along the way, the same can be said about any great human endeavor. This is not to say that the loss faced during this progress should be disregarded, rather we should face the reality that there will be loss and appreciate that which these people have sacrificed everything for. -Brad Lundgren

Response to question 1:

In this case, I think that the precautionary principle does need to be applied. I can think of many cases where genetic modification could cause major problems for individuals as well as the society as a whole. For one, I think that we need to make sure that people cannot modify their children’s genetics, unless it is absolutely necessary for the health of the child. If we do not regulate this, then people will be affected their entire lives from an unfair and selfish decision their parents made before they were able to decide for themselves what they really want. Another reason why we would need these regulations is because without them, society would be even more polarized than it is already. Giving some very wealthy people the ability to, for example, live forever could be very detrimental. I always think about the Altered Carbon where those at the top have been alive for hundreds of years and essentially rule the world because of their superior technology. I believe that being safe rather than sorry is imperative when deciding whether or not we need to regulate modification soon. Once people begin to modify genetics without regulation, it may be too late and irreversible. Instead, using the precautionary princle, we can jump on this issue before it becomes too large and mainstream. I don’t think that the precautionary approach would suffice in this situation, since the modification of genetics is one that will permeate through entire families and generations. I think that the best way that we can regulate genetic modification is with the doctors and scientists that perform these operations. We need to make sure that they operate under the moral code that implies that they may not perform any operations unless the individual needs said operation for explicit medical reasons. If the doctor suspects that the person does not need genetic modification, then he or she should not be permitted to perform it.

-Andrew Fitz

Question 1 Response: 

I would choose being safe rather than sorry over knowing what the benefits of genetic modification could be. Although, I don’t know how much we can anticipate the threat it could cause. I think precautionary principle for genetic modification is ideal, but the only way we may ever know the potential benefits of genetic modification are if they are tested on humans. While testing on animals is a good way to collect data and general information, we won’t know the full effects of what genetic modification can do until it’s done.

Personally, I don’t think genetically modifying humans is ethical, but I do think that will be an option in the future. Primarily for the rich, genetically modifying humans will likely be something people can choose to do. I anticipate our idea of genetic modification changing once it’s tested on humans and available as a choice for parents. I still don’t think parents will be able to “create” the “perfect child” by using genetic modification. Epigenetics shows the expression of genes to be different based on environment, childhood, culture, etc...so even if genes are modified, the way they are carried out might look different.

-Remi Cox

Question 4 Response:

  I think that yes there should be limitations on certain technologies but I don't think we should have the kind that directly limit the innovation or creation of a product, but rather have precautionary rules more oriented toward ethical limitations. I think creativity and continous learning by innovating new solutions is important for our society to proceed and grow, however I think that often people take these new technologies and rather than use them for what they're intended for, use them in harmful, destructive, and unethical ways. If there were rules on not what people can create, but how people can create it and how they can use their creations then we might find a balance between being technologically precautionary and procationary.  

-Lake Deane

Response to Question 4:

Technology is advancing at such an accelerating and rapid pace that it is difficult for even the government to keep up. Recently, new technologies such as drones allow regular people to spy on people and invade their privacy in ways never done before. People with drones can control the device to fly over someone’s house and look into their windows or just follow someone on the streets without one knowing. There currently aren’t many regulations or laws regarding drones as it was implemented into society out of nowhere and now there are a bunch of different drones on the market. The government is having a hard time creating laws and restrictions on drones because it is such a new concept and it was created so quickly. Currently, there are restrictions on flying in some places such as Washington D.C., but there aren’t enough regulations as people can easily be stalked. Also, cameras and smartphones can track your every move, location, and thing you say without you actually realizing. The government hasn’t put any restrictions on that and it can be retrieved by the government whenever they want. Also, companies on the internet such as Facebook and Google have the ability to track every click you make and they put it into their database. People don’t realize it but they can track everything you do and determine the type of person you are.

People have different views on how technology should be regulated. Some people believe that the government needs to regulate technology more carefully to enjoy we are safe users of the products while others don’t care and what new technologies developed as fast as possible regardless if it is certainly safe. The followers of the precautionary principle want to ensure that technology is safe especially when technology gets so advanced that we input artificial intelligence into human brains and we genetically modify people. The goal of the precautionary principle is “acting to prevent harm in situations in which it is uncertain whether there is a threat or, if there is a threat, how serious it is” (Sandlin, 1). As technology is starting to focus on how we can improve human beings and change their genes, it becomes obvious that safety is a key issue. I personally believe that safety is the number one priority in this situation. We can’t be putting humans at risk with these technologies. These technologies should be implemented into society after it is certain that it is totally safe. Although regulation slows down the process of developing technology, it is crucial if we want to move forward as a society because introducing something dangerous into society is not only going to hurt people, but hinder process as well. The solution for this is to try and test new technological devices on lab animals many times and to conduct enough research until it is certain that the device is safe for human use. It obviously takes a lot more time than if they didn’t check for safety, but it is important.

-Vincent Chen

In response to question 6