Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Precaution without principle

Nature Biotechnology volume 19, pages 302–303 (2001)Cite this article

Remember the admonition not to believe a bureaucrat who claims that “I'm from the government and I'm here to help you?” Well, government regulators now have a more subtle, updated version of that assertion: a wolf in sheep's clothing called the “precautionary principle”. It has already laid waste to several industries and boasts a body count in the tens of thousands. It is now being used to cripple public sector and academic researchers as well as the biotechnology industry.

Although a widely accepted definition of the “principle” does not exist, its thrust is that regulatory measures should prevent or restrict actions that raise even conjectural threats of harm to human health or the environment, although there may be incomplete scientific evidence as to their potential significance. Several European countries have used the precautionary principle to justify paralyzing restrictions on agricultural and food biotechnology, and the European Commission (EC) has invoked it to justify a moratorium on the approval of new recombinant DNA-modified products1.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Hodgson, J. Nature Biotechnol. 18, 918–919 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, C. Nature 354, 255 (1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Durodié, W. Poisonous Propaganda: Global Echoes of an Anti-Vinyl Agenda (Washington DC: Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  4. European Commission. Communication From the Commission on the Precautionary Principle (Brussels: February 2, COM 1, 2000).

  5. Huttner, S.L., Miller, H.I. & Lemaux, P.G. US Agricultural Biotechnology: Status and Prospects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 50, 25–39 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Greenpeace. 1999 Federal Income Tax Filing with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service: IRS Form 990, Part III, Statement of Program Service Accomplishments, “Genetic Engineering.”

  7. Appell, D. Sci. Am. 284, 18–19 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hoover Institution, Stanford, 94305, CA

    Henry I. Miller & Gregory Conko

  2. Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, 20036, DC

    Henry I. Miller & Gregory Conko

Authors
  1. Henry I. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gregory Conko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miller, H., Conko, G. Precaution without principle. Nat Biotechnol 19, 302–303 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/86662

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/86662

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing