The precautionary principle should not be used as a basis for decision-making. Talking Point on the precautionary principle

EMBO Reports

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 305-308

  Peterson, Martin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY; TGN 1412; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ALLERGIC REACTION; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DECISION MAKING; DECISION THEORY; DRUG FEVER; DRUG INDUCED HEADACHE; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; HARM REDUCTION; HUMAN; PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT; RISK REDUCTION; SOCIAL BELIEF; VOMITING;

CELLULAR PHONE; CLINICAL TRIALS; DECISION MAKING; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; HUMANS; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT;

EID: 34047128693     PISSN: 1469221X     EISSN: 14693178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400947     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. John SD (2007) How to take deontological concerns seriously in risk-cost-benefit-analysis: A re-interpretation of the precautionary principle. J Med Ethics, in press
2. Kenter MJ, Cohen AF (2006) Establishing risk of human experimentation with drugs: Lessons from TGN1412. Lancet 368: 1387-1391
3. MHRA (2006) Investigations Into Adverse Incidents During Clinical Trials of TGN1412. London, UK: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
4. Peterson M (2006) The precautionary principle is incoherent. Risk Anal 26:595-601
5. Peterson M (2007) Should the precautionary principle guide our actions or our beliefs? J Med Ethics 33: 5-10
6. UN (1992) Report on the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. 1). New York, NY, USA: United Nations