It is quite stable to say that we should never use the Precautionary Principle because the principle is logically inconsistent, precisely for this reason. This is stable because refusing to use the principle is not logically inconsistent.
Laughs I added the "internal inconsistency" part to the Wikipedia article ages ago. (2011, specifically)
I see that it has citations now; I didn't bother, as I was just annoyed with people who kept arguing against advancing technology and wanted to throw a thumbtack in one of their gears.
It's been weighed down with some unnecessary language (as some kind of compromise over an edit war, I assume) in addition to some citations, but the basic structure looks like it's still intact. The unnecessary language argues that the precautionary principle -i...
Is the harm that the average ethical review board prevents less than the harm that they cause by preventing research from happening? Are principles such as requiring informed consent from all research participants justifiable from an utilitarian perspective?