Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-02-Speech-3-054"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000202.5.3-054"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Yes, Mr President, that is true. There were many and difficult issues and not always crystal clear, but I will try to answer some questions.
Who will take the decision, who are the decision-makers? Well, that depends on who the legislators are. This is part of risk management. They have to look at, for example, the concerns of people in relation to a special issue, and they have to judge from what is known about the scientific evidence in a certain case. However, it is true that it does not need a big majority of the scientific community to be able to use the precautionary principle. It can be used on evidence from a minority or where science is incomplete. That is, of course, where you strike a balance between this principle as a political tool and science.
It is not always easy to describe exactly how this process is done, but there is no question of changing the scientific base. We use the experts to get as much scientific information and facts as possible before we take a decision; and that should also be done in the future. You have to see this as a tool for risk management. You have to decide whether you want to put people in danger, for example, or if you want to protect the environment; and you have to look at the science that is available. You have to assess all that and evaluate the science. Then you decide to take a measure or not, to take action or not. So, there is no answer to all your questions but this does not change the system of the scientists that we use today or the system of experts that we use today."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples