A Critical Reading of the Conflict between Precautionary and Proactionary Principles in Technology Policy

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Researcher,Supreme National Defense University, Tehran, Iran

2 Faculty Member, Supreme National Defense University, Tehran, Iran

10.22034/jstp.2019.11.3.1014

Abstract

In the recent years, a revolution in culture and technology policy has been taking place in the industrial countries, which is known as the proactionary turn. From policy making standpoint, proactionary school is the opposite of precautionary approach. Both of these schools are focusing on risk as their central concept. While precautionary approach emphasizes on risk-control as well as risk-avoidance, proactionary standpoint is created around the idea of the significance of risk-taking for making technological progress. This article examines the presumptions of these two approaches in policy in their historical and legal contexts. The article also tries to introduce the two mentioned approaches to Iranian scholars and decision makers. The critical examination of Precautionary and Proactionary approaches will constitute a proposal for a national tech/culture policy document which works as a foundation and framework of decision-making about the emerging technologies. This theoretical research will use library research as a data gathering method.
 

Keywords


[1] Fuller, S., & Lipinska, V. (2014). The proactionary imperative: a foundation for transhumanism. Springer.
[2] GODARZI, M., REZAALIZADEH, H., GHARIBI, J., & MOHSENI, K. M. (2014). Pathology of Science and Technology Policies of Iran: An Analysis of the five-year development plans, Journal of Technology Development Management, 2(3). 137-161.{In Persian}
[3] Fazeli, N. (2017). Culture and University, Tehran: Sales. {In Persian}
[4] Fuller, S. (2012). Precautionary and proactionary as the new right and the new left of the twenty-first century ideological spectrum. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 25(4): 157-174.
[5] Unep.org, (2014). Rio Declaration - Rio Declaration on Environment and Development - United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). [online] Available at: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163 [Accessed 31 Oct. 2014].
[6] Hartzell-Nichols, L. (2017). A climate of risk: precautionary principles, catastrophes, and climate change. Routledge..
[7] Von Schomberg, R. (2012). The precautionary principle: its use within hard and soft law. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 3(2), 147-156.
[8] Graham, J. D. (2004). The perils of the precautionary principle: lessons from the American and European experience (Vol. 818). Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation. Available at: http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-perils-of-the-precautionary-principle-lessons-from-the-american-and-european-experience [Accessed 31 Oct. 2014].
[9] More, M. (2013). The proactionary principle: optimizing technological outcomes. The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future, 258-267.
[10] Remedios, F. X., & Dusek, V. (2018). Knowing Humanity in the Social World: The Path of Steve Fuller's Social Epistemology. Springer.
[11] Caughill, P. (2017). Elon Musk Just Unveiled His Plans for the Future in a Ted Talk. [online] Futurism. Available at: https://futurism.com/elon-musk-just-unveiled-his-plans-for-the-future-in-a-ted-talk/ [Accessed 3 May 2017].
[12] Paya, A. (2018). Critical rationalism as a theoretical framework for futures studies and foresightFutures96, 104-114. {In Persian}
[13] Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard university press.
Knight, F. (1971). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Chicago ua.
[15] Goldman, A. and Blanchard, T. (2018) "Social Epistemology" [online], The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/epistemology-social/ [Accessed 3 August 2018].
[16] Reider, P. J. (2016). Social epistemology and epistemic agency: decentralizing epistemic agency.
[17] Unger, R. M. (2007). The self awakened: Pragmatism unbound. Harvard University Press.
[18] Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. Currency.
[19] Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. J. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk analysis, 1(1), 11-27.
Petryna, A. (2013). Life exposed: biological citizens after Chernobyl. Princeton University Press.
[21] Wallerstein, E. (1983). Historical Capitalism. London: Verso.
[22] Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: towards a new modernity, London: Sage.
[23] Vahid, M. (2007). A Discussion on Cultural Policy, Politics Journal, Volume 37, Number 3, 287-306. {In Persian}
[24] Rausand, M. (2013). Risk assessment: theory, methods, and applications (Vol. 115). John Wiley & Sons.