Precaution and the methodological status of scientific (un)certainty

An effective application of the Precautionary Principle (PP) hinges on the stipulation that, "a lack of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures.'' The practical consequences of this expression are presently not clear enough in most contexts of use to enable constructive communication and therefore the PP is not sufficiently operational now. A pragmatic and fundamental methodology for understanding scientific (un)certainty in different practical contexts needs to be put in place to create a communicative basis for effective precaution. Lack of clarity about problem definition and problem ownership creates artificial controversies that will obstruct a precautionary approach. Given the fact that different practical contexts of scientific (un)certainty exist, it may seem from one context as if no precaution is warranted whereas concerns from another relevant context may suggest otherwise. Therefore, an integrative methodological framework for communicating about scientific (un)certainty is sorely needed in international policy-making. By putting a focus on the relevance of specified research questions for the objective of taking precaution, a communicative methodology may be adopted that is dedicated to the design properties of a sustainable future. Precaution cannot be operationalized without a methodological basis that allows for effective transparency and evades the stalemates of artificial controversy. Existing debate methodologies have so far not managed to accommodate these pressing demands.