14
2 Technology, Risk, Precaution, and Sustainability
for example, when a technology is newly introduced and there is no body of
experience describing its typical failures and their consequences. But even wellknown technologies may lead to events that nobody could anticipate and that are
not known before they happen.
When events and their impacts are known, but the associated probabilities are
not, this is called a situation under uncertainty (Wynne, 1992; Hansson, 2009). 2 For
situations where neither the relevant events nor their probabilities are known, the
terms “indeterminacy” (Wynne, 1992), “deep uncertainty,” “great uncertainty,” or
“ignorance” (Hansson and Hirsch Hadorn, 2016) are used.
Importantly, many cases where one has to deal with the unwanted impacts of a
technology are situations under uncertainty or even under deep uncertainty. One
example is the depletion of stratospheric ozone by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),
which was a later discovery and not at all anticipated when CFCs were introduced. Decision-making under (deep) uncertainty requires different techniques
than decision-making under risk, where normally the methods of probabilistic
risk assessment (PRA) are used. Hansson and Hirsch Hadorn (2016) present the
approach of the argumentative turn as a method that can take into account poorly
characterized outcomes, their implications, and their relevance for decision-making.
It is important to acknowledge the (deep) uncertainty of many decision-making
situations in the area of technology assessment and not to force the blueprint of
probabilistic risk assessment on them. Probabilistic risk assessment has very high
demands on the information that characterizes the events to be considered and is
often not the method of choice. 3
A concept that is often invoked in situations with a fundamental lack of knowledge
and (deep) uncertainty is the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle
is stated prominently in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration of 1992: “In order
to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied
by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” (UNGA,
1992).
The role of the precautionary principle in the context of poorly known environmental impacts of technology has been analyzed in two landmark reports on
Late Lessons from Early Warnings published by the European Environment Agency
(2002, 2013). In the two reports, more than ten chemical-related case studies
are analyzed, including asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, lead in gasoline,
perchloroethylene in plastic water pipes, mercury in fish (the Minamata case), and
2 As it was discussed for the term “risk” in the previous section, also “uncertainty” is used here
in a specific technical sense, but it can also be understood in a more general way (Hansson and
Hirsch Hadorn, 2016).
3 Hansson (2009) introduces the term “tuxedo fallacy” (after the gambler in a casino wearing a
tuxedo and calculating probabilities) for cases where a probabilistic risk assessment is attempted
although the situation is one under (deep) uncertainty.
2 Technology, Risk, Precaution, and Sustainability
for example, when a technology is newly introduced and there is no body of
experience describing its typical failures and their consequences. But even wellknown technologies may lead to events that nobody could anticipate and that are
not known before they happen.
When events and their impacts are known, but the associated probabilities are
not, this is called a situation under uncertainty (Wynne, 1992; Hansson, 2009). 2 For
situations where neither the relevant events nor their probabilities are known, the
terms “indeterminacy” (Wynne, 1992), “deep uncertainty,” “great uncertainty,” or
“ignorance” (Hansson and Hirsch Hadorn, 2016) are used.
Importantly, many cases where one has to deal with the unwanted impacts of a
technology are situations under uncertainty or even under deep uncertainty. One
example is the depletion of stratospheric ozone by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),
which was a later discovery and not at all anticipated when CFCs were introduced. Decision-making under (deep) uncertainty requires different techniques
than decision-making under risk, where normally the methods of probabilistic
risk assessment (PRA) are used. Hansson and Hirsch Hadorn (2016) present the
approach of the argumentative turn as a method that can take into account poorly
characterized outcomes, their implications, and their relevance for decision-making.
It is important to acknowledge the (deep) uncertainty of many decision-making
situations in the area of technology assessment and not to force the blueprint of
probabilistic risk assessment on them. Probabilistic risk assessment has very high
demands on the information that characterizes the events to be considered and is
often not the method of choice. 3
A concept that is often invoked in situations with a fundamental lack of knowledge
and (deep) uncertainty is the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle
is stated prominently in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration of 1992: “In order
to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied
by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” (UNGA,
1992).
The role of the precautionary principle in the context of poorly known environmental impacts of technology has been analyzed in two landmark reports on
Late Lessons from Early Warnings published by the European Environment Agency
(2002, 2013). In the two reports, more than ten chemical-related case studies
are analyzed, including asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, lead in gasoline,
perchloroethylene in plastic water pipes, mercury in fish (the Minamata case), and
2 As it was discussed for the term “risk” in the previous section, also “uncertainty” is used here
in a specific technical sense, but it can also be understood in a more general way (Hansson and
Hirsch Hadorn, 2016).
3 Hansson (2009) introduces the term “tuxedo fallacy” (after the gambler in a casino wearing a
tuxedo and calculating probabilities) for cases where a probabilistic risk assessment is attempted
although the situation is one under (deep) uncertainty.