February 2006
Panic Attack: The New Precautionary Culture, the Politics of Fear, and the Risks to Innovation
Our culture is in the grip of the “precautionary principle.” From agricultural biotechnology and biomedicine to geopolitics, international business, education, and our most intimate relationships, risk aversion has become a defining and paralyzing ethic of our time. The notion that we should forsake the products and benefits of new technologies until they are proven to have no adverse effects reflects an obsessive fear of the unknown. The broader and more deep-rooted implications of our new precautionary culture have been left unaddressed. This February 14 AEI conference, organized in cooperation with the UK Institute of Ideas, met to promote wider discussion of why so many aspects of contemporary life have been affected by our aversion to risk. Panelists concluded that only by challenging the wider risk-averse culture that permeates contemporary society can we hope to rediscover a sense of purpose about progress and a desire to experiment with new ways of doing things.
Morning Address: The Politics of Fear
Frank Furedi
University of Kent
Fear is an incapacitating thing in our society. Our culture is hospitable to precautionary culture and the politics of fear. People fear many different things, such as crime, terrorism, avian flu, disease, obesity, and pollutants--an endless, continuously changing list. These are dominating fears because they are not things that people can overcome on their own. Fear has become independent of any specific threat, making it much easier for the precautionary culture to take hold. Mr. Furedi defined the five conditions of society that foster the culture of fear:
1. A shift in the moral reaction to harm. People no longer think of things as accidents, there is no bad luck, there are no longer natural disasters, someone is always to blame. This attitude shifts responsibility from people to institutions and leads to government micromanagement.
2. Harm is presented in an increasingly dramatic fashion. People are no longer expected to recover from setbacks. They can be damaged or scarred for life, never fully recovering from accidents. This feeds the image that harm is unknowable, unpredictable, and catastrophic.
3. Life is dangerous. People adopt the precautionary principle, being continually negative and feeding on worst-case scenarios. The smallest issues seem to impact human survival and the question “what if” drives policymaking decisions.
4. Safety is an end in itself. There is a focus on safe sex, safe medicine, and safe schools. Mr. Furedi used the example of his son’s school, which cited child safety as its primary concern, whereas Mr. Furedi had hoped it would be his son’s education. Similarly, railroads focus on safety rather than punctuality or cleanliness. However, trying to be safe does not necessarily make you safer.
5. There has been a redefinition of what a human being is in Western culture. Groups are defined by their vulnerability. Ninety percent of people--women, children, minorities, the poor, and the disabled--fall into the category “vulnerable group.”
Policymaking echoes this culture of precaution. The precautionary principle exacts a high price on society and now influences our everyday lives.
Panel I: Culture and Education
Claire Fox
Institute of Ideas
Recently in the UK, parliament passed the Every Child Matters Act. The act started a chain of protective legislation and motivated a preventative approach to child-care that has spread into schools, sports, and homes. For example, legislation has changed the way adults and children interact in sports by requiring clubs to adopt child protection measures in order to receive public funding. Ms. Fox noted that coaches can no longer touch athletes and must exercise caution in giving critical feedback or trying to motivate athletes. She argued that in addition to eliminating competition from athletics, these measures paint child abuse as the norm, rather than the exception. In reality, physical and sexual abuse of children is rare. Furthermore, the term “abuse” has been applied to so many types of interactions that it is no longer a useful label. Increasingly many of the claims of abuse in sports clubs are of verbal abuse, which is defined in a broad, loose way. Discipline in the classroom is also falling into the abuse category, such that many teachers now avoid disciplining even the most disruptive students for fear of reprisal. Abuse can even extend to peer groups and includes bullying and exclusion from friendship.
There has been a breakdown of trust in society. There is a climate of fear, and parents, coaches, and teachers are paranoid that all adults in a child’s life are potential threats for abuse. The obsession with child safety will have several negative effects on children and society at large. As children are continually cast in the role as victims and come to view adults as always suspicious, they will always be fearful. Society must fight this precautionary culture now or the changes will become permanent.
Christina Hoff Sommers
AEI
Ms. Sommers declared American children to be the most protected kids in history. Adults now try to protect them not only from harm, but from stress, anxiety, and hurt feelings. She argues that these efforts are misguided. Studies from the Brookings Institution and the Public Agenda find that despite parents’ claims of overstressed, overworked children, American students do much less homework than other students and most feel they could acceptably pass their classes with minimal effort. In fact, the Public Agenda concluded that students hunger for more rigorous standards in education.
Sommers claims that overprotectiveness is the cause of the United States’ low achievement in academics, particularly math and science. Her solution: society needs to stop worrying about children’s stress and self-esteem. Caution about children’s feelings has gone to excessive levels; teachers no longer feel they can use red pens when grading papers for fear that the marks will seem too harsh. Lavender is recommended as a much more soothing color. U.S. children are also over-praised, receiving trophies for mere participation while teachers struggle to find games where everyone wins. American Idol, the television show in which judge Simon Cowell offers brutally honest feedback to bad singers, is unique. Ms. Sommers hypothesizes that the novelty of hearing frank criticism may be what draws the show’s teenage viewers. It is a dogma that children’s self-esteem is at risk. However, Sommers argues that children need self-control, not self-esteem.
Panel II: Law and Business
Jon Entine
AEI
There is a hysteria surrounding the idea of “corporate social responsibility” (CSR). As proof, Mr. Entine cites a 2004 documentary called The Corporation that is shown in business schools throughout the world. He believes that the film indoctrinates students about the supposed manipulation, environmental damage, and social harm that characterize corporate life. This propaganda has a profound effect on the way corporations can do business since companies are no longer accountable only for management and profit margins. In addition to shareholders and employees, they are also being held accountable to the environment, local communities, humanity, and future generations.
Another example Mr. Entine gives of the harm of the CSR movement is the disposal of the Brent Spar tanker by Shell Oil in 1995. Shell had an unused oil tanker to dispose of; after thirty environmental studies and four years of research, it decided it would be most environmentally safe and cost effective to sink the tanker deep in the North Atlantic. The UK approved the decision, but the sinking was interrupted by protestors from Greenpeace, who insisted that the tanker instead be dismantled on land. Despite the compelling facts it had collected in its research, Shell was unable to counter Greenpeace’s “made-for-TV protest,” so finally consented to dismantle the tanker in Norway--at great cost to the company, society, and the environment. Greenpeace effectively reframed the corporate debate into moral and ethical terms. The illusion remains that corporations are corrupt and becoming increasingly more so. Mr. Entine concludes that the CSR debate has had a very high toll and corporations, policymakers, and the public all lose in the process.
Philip Howard
Covington and Burling
Life has always been full of risk. Mr. Howard laments that, of late, risk has not been portrayed as an opportunity but as something evil. Risk is something to be avoided at all costs. “You took a risk” is an accusation--grounds to sue--which has led to the rise of a new type of risk: legal risk. Instead of performing a straight cost-benefit analysis, legal risk forces companies to look to the lowest common denominator in decision-making. For example, if a company makes a drug that saves countless lives but costs a few, it may be ruined. One dissatisfied person can destroy companies, stop sales, ruin individuals. Thus, even if an activity is socially beneficial, it can nevertheless become something no one will do.
Wealthy societies are apt to err on the side of caution in order to protect wealth. The problem with such precaution is that people no longer act. Mr. Howard cites statistics that doctors perform over $100 billion worth of unnecessary tests annually to ensure they cannot be blamed for malpractice. Businesses no longer give references, fearing accusations of either slander or bias. One hospital worker, accused of killing many patients, passed undetected through numerous emergency rooms because none of his past employers dared give him a bad recommendation. Playgrounds are stripped of equipment so as to protect children against harm, leading to a spike in youth obesity. Warning labels appear so universally on products that they are no longer useful. To fight this paralysis, society needs authority. Laws must define what is reasonable. Judges must be held accountable--there can be no more ad hoc, varying decisions. It is the duty of the legal system to set social parameters. Mr. Howard concludes that the first necessary change to stop the growing precautionary culture is empowering leadership.
Lunch Keynote: The Precautionary Principle and the International Conflict over Agricultural Biotechnology
Lester Crawford
Policy Directions
The recent WTO decision did not heed the precautionary principle when it sided with the petition from the United States, Canada, and Argentina about genetically modified (GM) foods. Mr. Crawford argued that this decision began to knock down the barriers to GM food that had been erected in Europe. Prior to the WTO decision, Europe had not performed any risk assessment to justify banning the GM foods, costing many billions of dollars. In Mr. Crawford’s opinion, proper risk assessment tests are vital, since risk analysis is the language of regulation. Despite the WTO decision, there are still “raging disputes” between countries over what food regulations are acceptable. For example, Greece defied an order to allow MON 810, a maize variety, on its market, citing an immediate risk that the food was dangerous. Mr. Crawford argues that Greece’s decision was based on the precautionary principle rather than a rigorous risk assessment. The EU rejected Greece’s argument, stating that there was “no new evidence of risk” and ordered Greece to accept MON 810. Mr. Crawford is optimistic about the implications of the EU’s order for the future of GM foods.
However, he notes that the use of the precautionary principle is not always wrong. In the United States, the FDA has combined the use of the precautionary principle with risk evaluation with great success. Thalidomide is a case in which the regulatory actions and application of the precautionary principle by the FDA was a great advantage, saving many lives. Another example is the BSE/mad cow scare where the FDA banned shipments from the UK to protect again the disease. In order to have a successful path going forward, there needs to be a public understanding of risk assessment. He argued that the precautionary principle can be useful but only when accompanied by an immediate risk assessment.
Panel III: Media and Science
Ron Bailey
Reason
Fear sells. News is composed of things that are unusual, so stories that appear are usually about unhappy things. Mr. Bailey points out that news distorts the perception of the amount of risk that people face. He cites statistics from 1957, when 90 percent of Americans thought that life was better because of science and could think of no negative consequences to science. However, times have changed greatly in the last fifty years. Technology has been consistently portrayed as bad, starting with Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring. In Silent Spring, Carson alleged that the use of DDT caused cancer and ecological damage. The book started the modern environmental movement and made DDT and other synthetic chemicals widely unpopular. DDT was banned in 1972, but after forty-five years of testing, it still has not been proven a carcinogen; Mr. Bailey asserts that it was banned mostly because it was unpopular.
Mr. Bailey cites several other books that he feels have incited fear unnecessarily. 1972’s Limits to Growth, commissioned by the Club of Rome, spoke of the impending danger to population growth. In 1993, The Great Power-Line Cover-up, by Paul Brodeur claimed the government was conspiring to conceal the cancer caused by electromagnetic fields (EMFs). However, despite the prevalence of EMFs, Brodeur’s book has been followed by years of decline in cancer rates. These and other scares eventually fade from public view but not without great expense and unnecessary fear. Such books have driven people toward the application of the precautionary principle in daily life. While people are actually hard-wired to focus on bad news as a means of protecting themselves, Mr. Bailey believes that we can and must overcome the tendency.
Tony Gilland
Institute of Ideas
Mr. Gilland discussed the impact that the genetically modified (GM) crops have on how we view science. He noted that the recent WTO ruling will not help in the culture war on GM foods. In the WTO complaint, the United States, Canada, and Argentina challenged Europe’s de facto moratorium on GM crops. The ban has had a dramatic impact on how people view GM crops. China, for example, which has much to gain from the introduction of genetically modified foods, has very strict rules, including rules about labeling. Mr. Gilland claims that Europe’s regulatory system is very “unscientific,” specifically labeling requirements. All food that has or may have GM products must be labeled. The goal was to inform consumers, but Mr. Gilland argues that it instead shows “a lack of willingness to stand up for the product’s scientific credentials.” The government requires excessive testing to ensure the safety of GM crops but then applies warning labels, mitigating the positive findings of the research.
In Europe, governments worry about the response of campaign groups, the media, and the public to GM crops. One group, the Role of Society, conducted extensive testing and found no problems and considerable benefits to using GM crops. However, in its report, it first emphasized the conceivable, but yet unknown, danger to infants and potential pollen problems rather than the benefits. Furthermore, Robert May, former president of the Royal Society, remarked that society’s relationship to science made the current era “both the best of times and the worst of times”--best because people are the longest living, and worst because the population is likely beyond earth’s sustainable capacity, which could cause problems with climate change, biodiversity, etc. Such thinking leads one to believe that people are ruining things all across the universe. Mr. Gilland disagrees, though argues that if society remains paralyzed about expanding its frontiers, earth’s destruction could actually be realized.
James K. Glassman
AEI
When consumer groups filed law suits and forced tobacco companies to pay out millions of dollars, Mr. Glassman noted that free marketers joked, “What’s next? Fast-food restaurants? Companies that make ice cream? Soft drinks?” However, no one is laughing now that such cases are being presented in court. While the cases have not had success thus far, legislation has been proposed to ban advertising fast food to children and to restrict junk food in vending machines. Mr. Glassman argues that if ever there was a matter of people being responsible for what they do, it is eating. These suits claim that the responsible party is not the person who chooses the food or puts it into his mouth, but the people who prepare the food and sell it. Blame-laying is all possible through the validation of the media. The media is guilty of promoting the precautionary principle because it is easier to scare readers than perform actual cost-benefit analyses. However, the connection between obesity and restaurants is complicated, with no clear consensus in the scientific community. In fact, food may not be responsible for obesity at all. Gina Kolata reported in the New York Times on February 8, 2006, that the largest study ever conducted about whether low-fat diet reduces the risk of cancer or heart disease found that diet had no discernible effect. That the story was reported was a victory, though many articles since urged readers not to take the test findings too seriously, defending the dogma that bad eating causes health problems. The fear about food and weight still exists; the surgeon general in 2004 identified childhood obesity as a greater threat than terrorism. Mr. Glassman asserts that while it may seem trivial, food issues may be the best place to take a stand against the precautionary principle.
Panel IV: Can We Rediscover Our Purpose and Commitment to Innovation?
Alan Wolfe
Boston College, Center for Religion and Public Life
Mr. Wolfe’s discussion of the precautionary principle stems from his recent book Return to Greatness, in which he contrasts the search for American goodness (virtue) versus the search for American greatness (power). Goodness was embodied in Founding Father Thomas Jefferson while greatness was embodied in Alexander Hamilton. The debate also extends globally and economically, crossing traditional ideological lines and partisan politics. In the United States of late, there has been a shift from the desire for greatness to the desire for goodness. This shift leads to risk aversion, which helps explain the rise in the precautionary principle. Goodness society stems from an “unscientific outlook on life,” dominated by fear of sin, corruption, and things foreign. He claimed that it tends to embody characteristics we associate with Rightist politics, such as strict constructionism. Fear is often part of the goodness society and has been used in the United States for partisan purposes. Mr. Wolfe noted the fear that was roused after the attacks of September 11, 2001, wondering if the United States could survive those 3,000 deaths as so many had subsequentially shown their willingness to sacrifice civil liberties and constitutional rights in order to protect themselves.
Mr. Wolfe rejects this line of thinking and urges the United States to move instead toward a greatness society. He notes that powerful government is necessary; government is not about size but function. He supports Bush’s change towards a more powerful executive.
Frank Furedi
University of Kent
Mr. Furedi agreed with Mr. Wolfe’s point about the importance of different perspective to the debate. He then reiterated his points about the culture of fear, specifically that people are beginning to care less about facts and statistics that go against dominant social values. He disagreed with earlier panelists who had cautioned against “throwing the baby out with the bath water” when making precautionary principle reform. Mr. Furedi claimed that the sooner we throw the baby out with the bathwater--the sooner we completely reframe the discussion--the better. He argued that society needs more free speech and tolerance toward the clash of opinions to make progress.
Claire Fox
Institute of Ideas
Ms. Fox agreed with Mr. Wolfe’s point that discussion on both sides was very important to the issue and arguments should not simply target easy enemies. She reasserted that the most important steps to eliminate the precautionary culture pervading society are working with youth and providing stronger leadership.
AEI research assistant Lauren Campbell prepared this conference summary.
