![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Recent years have seen the emergence of dual-use technologies and, more generally, of scientific practices that are potentially beneficial to humanity, but that may also have an irreversible impact on human beings. In those circumstances, the issue of the adequate anticipation not only of the risks (of harm) of science, but also of its (opportunities for) benefits has become more pressing. One framework from which States may derive duties and responsibilities to anticipate both those ‘risks’ and ‘benefits’ of science is the human right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and to participate in that progress (in short, the ‘human right to science’). Not only indeed does that right include everyone’s right to participate in the scientific enterprise and its organisation and to access to and enjoy the benefits of scientific progress, but it also includes the right to be protected against the adverse effects of science. Interestingly, while some duties to anticipate grounded in the human right to science have been briefly mentioned in recent interpretations of the right, their specific content, scope and bearers have not yet been addressed in depth. Remedying this gap is the aim of this special issue and of its eight original contributions.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Tamara Grigoras for her editorial assistance in preparing this introduction and to Camila Perruso for her help in organising this special issue. Many thanks to Damien Short and Amy Gibbons from the International Journal of Human Rights for making the special issue possible. Special thanks are due to the Brocher Foundation for hosting the workshop during which this issue’s articles were discussed from 29 November to 1 December, 2022, and to the Geneva Science Diplomacy Anticipator (GESDA) and Gérard Escher for facilitating the organisation of our workshop.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, New York, 16 December 1966, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 993, p. 3.
2 See e.g. UNESCO, Venice Statement on the Rights to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and its Applications (art. 15 (1) (b) ICESCR), July 17, 2009, https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/VeniceStatement_July2009.pdf, §13(a)(b), §13(c) (‘protection from abuse and adverse effects of science and its applications’) (emphasis added), §16(c) (‘monitor the potential harmful effects of science and technology’) (emphasis added); UN Human Rights Council (HRC), Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Ms Farida Shaheed, on the ‘Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and its Applications’, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/26 (May 12, 2012), https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-cultural-rights/right-benefit-scientific-progress-and-its-applications, §9 et seq., §43, §74(h) (‘provide opportunities for all to make informed decisions after considering both the possible improvements and potentially harmful side effects or dangerous usages of scientific advances’) (emphasis added), §74(m) (‘protect all individuals against any harmful effects of the misuse of scientific and technological developments’) (emphasis added). See also, albeit less specifically, UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), Guidelines on Treaty-Specific Documents to be Submitted by States Parties under Articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. E/C.12/2008/2 (March 24, 2009), https://undocs.org/en/E/C.12/2008/2, §70; CESCR General Comment No. 25, Science and economic, social and cultural rights (art. 15(1)(b), (2), (3) and (4)), UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/25 (April 30, 2020), https://undocs.org/E/C.12/GC/25, §6, §11, §75; CESCR General Comment No. 17, The right of everyone to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he or she is the author (art. 15 (1) (c) ICESCR), UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/17 (January 12, 2006), https://undocs.org/E/C.12/GC/17, §35. See also Audrey R. Chapman, ‘Towards an Understanding of the Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and its Applications’, Journal of Human Rights 8, no. 1 (2009): 1–36; William A. Schabas, ‘Looking Back: How the Founders Considered Science and Progress in Their Relation to Human Rights’, European Journal of Human Rights, Special issue on the Human Right to Science, 4 (2015): 504–18.
3 Especially CESCR General Comment No. 25, §53, §56–7, §71, §72–6.
4 See e.g. Samantha Besson, ‘The “Human Right to Science” qua Right to Participate in Science: The Participatory Good of Science and Its Human Rights Dimensions’, International Journal of Human Rights 2023: 1–32; Andrea Boggio, ‘The Right to Participate In and Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and Its Applications: A Conceptual Map’, New York International Law Review 34, no. 2 (2021): 43–77; Helle Porsdam and Sebastian Porsdam Mann, eds., The Right to Science: Then and Now (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021); Rumiana Yotova and Bartha M. Knoppers, ‘The Right to Benefit from Science and Its Implications for Genomic Data Sharing’, European Journal of International Law 31, no. 2 (2020): 665–91; Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Helle Porsdam, and Yvonne Donders, ‘Sleeping Beauty: The Right to Science as a Global Ethical Discourse’, Human Rights Quarterly 42, no. 2 (2020): 332–56; Andrea Boggio and Cesare P.R. Romano, ‘Freedom of Research and the Right to Science’, in The Freedom of Scientific Research, ed. Simona Giordano, John Harris, and Lucio Piccirillo (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2020), 162–75; Samantha Besson, ‘The Human Right to Science: Mapping the Issue’, European Journal of Human Rights, Special Issue on the Human Right to Science, 4 (2015): 403–10; Lea Shaver, ‘The Right to Science: Ensuring That Everyone Benefits from Scientific and Technological Progress’, European Journal of Human Rights, Special Issue on the Human Right to Science, 4 (2015): 411–30; Jessica M. Wyndham and Margaret Weigers Vitullo, ‘The Right to Science Whose Right? To What?’, European Journal of Human Rights, Special Issue on the Human Right to Science, 4 (2015): 431–61; Samantha Besson, ‘Science without Borders and the Boundaries of Human Rights – Who Owes the Human Right to Science?’, European Journal of Human Rights, Special Issue on the Human Right to Science, 4 (2015): 462–85; Yvonne Donders, ‘Balancing Interests: Limitations to the Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and Its Applications’, European Journal of Human Rights, Special Issue on the Human Right to Science, 4 (2015): 486–503; Schabas, ‘Looking Back’; Eibe Riedel, ‘Sleeping Beauty or Let Sleeping Dogs Lie? The Right of Everyone to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and Its Applications (REBSPA)’, in Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity: Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum, ed. Holger P. Hestermeyer et al. (Leiden: Brill/Nijhoff, 2012), 503–21; Lea Shaver, ‘The Right to Science and Culture’, Wisconsin Law Review 1 (2010): 121–84; Amrei Müller, ‘Remarks on the Venice Statement on the Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and Its Applications (Article 15(1)(b) ICESCR)’, Human Rights Law Review 10, no. 4 (2010): 765–84; Chapman, ‘Towards an Understanding’; Richard P. Claude, ‘Scientists’ Rights and the Human Right to the Benefits of Science’, in Core Obligations: Building A Framework for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ed. Audrey R. Chapman and Sage Russell (Antwerp/Oxford/New York: Intersentia, 2002), 247–78.
5 UN General Assembly Resolution 3384 (XXX), Declaration on the Use of Scientific and Technological Progress in the Interests of Peace and for the Benefit of Mankind, UN Doc. A/RES/30/3384 (10 November 1975), http://www.un-documents.net/a30r3384.htm.
6 UNESCO, Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers (1974 Revised Text), UNESCO Doc. 41 C/36 (November 13, 2017), https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000260889.page=116.
7 UNESCO, Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge, UNESCO Doc. 30 C/15 (July 1, 1999), https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000116994; UNESCO, Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, UNSECO Doc. 33 C/Res. 15 (October 19, 2005), https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000180371.
8 UNESCO, Venice Statement.
9 UN HCR, 2012 Report; UN HCR, Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Ms Farida Shaheed, on ‘copyright policy and the right to science and culture’, UN Doc. A/HRC/28/57 (December 24, 2014), https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/792652.
10 CESCR General Comment No. 25. That comment closed the sequel initiated by the publication of two earlier general comments on the other two rights protected by Article 15(1) ICESCR: CESCR General Comment No. 21, The right of everyone to take part in cultural life (art. 15 (1) (a) ICESCR), UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/2121 (December 21, 2009), https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/679354; CESCR General Comment No. 17.
11 See CESCR General Comment No. 25, §2. For a first survey of that practice, see Yotova and Knoppers, ‘The Right to Benefit from Science and Its Implications for Genomic Data Sharing’, 677–85.
12 For a full argument, see Besson, ‘The “Human Right to Science”’, 2023. See also Chapman, ‘Towards an Understanding’.
13 UN General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN Doc. A/RES/217 A (III) (December 10, 1948), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/88/PDF/NR004388.pdf?OpenElement, Article 27: ‘Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.’ (emphasis added).
14 ICESCR, Article 15: ‘1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone: (a) To take part in cultural life; (b) To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications; (c) To benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. 2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for the conservation, the development and the diffusion of science and culture. 3. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to respect the freedom indispensable for scientific research and creative activity. 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the benefits to be derived from the encouragement and development of international contacts and co-operation in the scientific and cultural fields.’ (emphasis added).
15 On this term, see Porsdam Mann, Porsdam and Donders, ‘Sleeping Beauty’; Riedel, ‘Sleeping Beauty or Let Sleeping Dogs Lie?’
16 See Besson, ‘The “Human Right to Science”’, 2023.
17 See for a full argument, Besson, ‘The “Human Right to Science”’, 2023. For a confirmation, see also CESCR General Comment No. 25, §11: ‘The right enshrined in article 15(1)(b) encompasses not only a right to receive the benefits of the applications of scientific progress, but also a right to participate in scientific progress. Thus, it is the right to participate in and to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications.’ (emphasis added).
18 See my Swiss National Science Foundation Research Project entitled ‘Institutionalizing the Human Right to Science’ (2022–25).
19 See Robert K. Merton, ‘The Normative Structure of Science’, in The Sociology of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 268: ‘[…] A tower of ivory becomes untenable when its walls are under prolonged assault. After a long period of relative security, during which the pursuit and diffusion of knowledge had risen to a leading place if indeed not to the first rank in the scale of cultural values, scientists are compelled to vindicate the ways of science to man. Thus they have come full circle to the point of the reemergence of science in the modern world. Three centuries ago, when the institution of science could claim little independent warrant for social support, natural philosophers were likewise led to justify science as a means to the culturally validated ends of economic utility and the glorification of God. The pursuit of science was then no self-evident value. With the unending flow of achievement, however, instrumental was transformed into the terminal, means into the end. Thus fortified, scientist came to regard himself as independent of society and to consider science as a self-validating enterprise which was in society but not of it. A frontal assault on the autonomy of science was required to convert this sanguine isolationism into realistic participation in the revolutionary conflict of cultures. The joining of the issue has led to a clarification and reaffirmation of the ethos of modern science’.
20 Ulrich Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London/Newbury Park/Calif: Sage Publications, 1992).
21 See Mireille Delmas-Marty, Résister, responsabiliser, anticiper, ou, comment humaniser la mondialisation (Paris: Seuil, 2013).
22 On the latter, see Samantha Besson, La due diligence en droit international, Collected courses of the Hague Academy of International Law (vol. 409) (Leiden/Boston: Brill/Nijhoff, 2020), §60–85. For an English version of the book, see Samantha Besson, Due Diligence in International Law (Leiden/Boston: Brill/Nijhoff, 2023).
23 On the relationship between those three dimensions in international environmental law, see Besson, La Due Diligence, §432.
24 On that continuum, see International Law Association (ILA) Resolution 2/2014, Declaration of Legal Principles Relating to Climate Change, April 7–11, 2014, https://www.ila-hq.org/en_GB/documents/conference-resolution-no-2-english-washington-2014, Article 7A, Article 7B. See also Gerhard Hafner and Isabelle Buffard, ‘Obligations of Prevention and the Precautionary Principle’, in The Law of International Responsibility, ed. James Crawford et al., Oxford Commentaries on International Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 521–34.
25 On the conditions of due diligence, see Besson, La Due Diligence, §199–206.
26 On the variability of due diligence in general, see Besson, La Due Diligence, §247–77.
27 On the variability of due diligence in international human rights law, see Besson, La Due Diligence, §531–3.
28 See e.g. UN General Assembly Resolution 3384 (XXX), §2: ‘All States shall take appropriate measures to prevent the use of scientific and technological developments, particularly by the State organs, to limit or interfere with the enjoyment of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the individual as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant international instruments.’ (emphasis added).
29 See William Schabas, ‘Codifying the human right to science’, in this special issue; Schabas, ‘Looking Back’.
30 See UNESCO, Venice Statement, §14(a) (‘The duty to respect should include: a) to take measures, including legislative measures, to prevent and preclude the utilization by third parties of science and technologies to the detriment of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the dignity of the human person by third parties’) (emphasis added), §14(d) (‘[…] to take appropriate measures to prevent the use of science and technology in a manner that could limit or interfere with the enjoyment of the human rights and fundamental freedoms’) (emphasis added). See also UNESCO, 1974/2017 Recommendation, preamble: ‘Recognizing that: (a) scientific discoveries and related technological developments and applications open up vast prospects for progress made possible in particular by the optimum utilization of science and scientific methods for the benefit of humankind and for the preservation of peace and the reduction of international tensions but may, at the same time, entail certain dangers which constitute a threat, especially in cases where the results of scientific research are used against humankind’s vital interests in order to prepare wars involving destruction on a massive scale or for purposes of the exploitation of one nation by another, or to the detriment of human rights or fundamental freedoms or the dignity of a human person, and in any event give rise to complex ethical and legal problems.’ (emphasis added).
31 See CESCR General Comment No. 17, §35: ‘[…] States parties should prevent the use of scientific and technical progress for purposes contrary to human rights and dignity, including the rights to life, health and privacy, e.g. by excluding inventions from patentability whenever their commercialization would jeopardize the full realization of these rights.’ (emphasis added). See also CESCR General Comment No. 25, §6: ‘[…] Thus, the development of science in the service of peace and human rights should be prioritized by States over other uses.’ (emphasis added).
32 See Chapman, ‘Towards an Understanding’.
33 See Porsdam Mann, Porsdam, and Donders, ‘Sleeping Beauty’.
34 See Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973), 350.
35 With the encouragement of the CESCR lately: see e.g. CESCR General Comment No. 25, §72.
36 See Besson, La Due Diligence, §132, §228–31, §277, §417.
37 See Bartha M. Knoppers and Henry T. Greely, ‘Biotechnologies Nibbling at the Legal “Human”’, Science 336, no. 6472 (2019): 1455–57.
38 See e.g. Benoit Mayer, ‘Climate Change Mitigation as an Obligation Under Human Rights Treaties?’, American Journal of International Law 115, no. 3 (2021): 409–51.
39 For a presentation of each regime and a comparison, see Rumiana Yotova, ‘Anticipatory duties under the human right to science and international biomedical law’, in this special issue; Anna-Maria Hubert, ‘Between Scylla and Charybdis: the implications of the human right to science for regulating the harms and benefits of environmental science and technology’, in this special issue.
40 See Hubert, ‘Between Scylla and Charybdis: the implications of the human right to science for regulating the harms and benefits of environmental science and technology’, in this special issue; Anna-Maria Hubert, ‘The Human Right to Science and Its Relationship to International Environmental Law’, European Journal of International Law 31, no. 2 (2020): 625–56; Elisa Morgera, ‘Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing at the Cross-Roads of the Human Right to Science and International Biodiversity Law’, Laws 4, no. 4 (2015): 803–31.
41 See Yotova, ‘Anticipatory duties under the human right to science and international biomedical law’, in this special issue; Yotova and Knoppers, ‘The Right to Benefit from Science and Its Implications for Genomic Data Sharing’.
42 See Camila Perruso, ‘Anticipation under the human right to science and under other social and cultural rights’, in this special issue.
43 See e.g. CESCR, 2009 Guidelines, §70(b) (‘the measures taken to prevent the use of scientific and technical progress for purposes which are contrary to the enjoyment of human dignity and human rights.’) (emphasis added); CESCR General Comment No. 17, §35. For a recent confirmation, see CESCR General Comment No. 25, §56. See also Yvonne Donders and Monika Plozza, ‘Look before you leap: states' prevention and anticipation duties under the right to science’, in this special issue.
44 See Besson, ‘The “Human Right to Science”’, 2023.
45 On human rights conflicts in general, see Samantha Besson, ‘Human Rights in Relation: A Critical Reading of the ECtHR’s Approach to Conflicts of Rights’, in When Human Rights Clash at the European Court of Human Rights: Conflict or Harmony? ed. Stijn Smet and Eva Brems (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 23–37.
46 See Besson, ‘The “Human Right to Science”’, 2023. See also, albeit from a strictly democratic perspective, Zeynep Pamuk, ‘Dangerous Science and the Limits of Free Inquiry’, in Politics and Expertise. How to Use Science in a Democratic Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2021), 161–84; Zeynep Pamuk, ‘Risk and Fear: Restricting Science under Uncertainty’, Journal of Applied Philosophy 38, no. 3 (2021): 444–60.
47 On the dualist dimension of the HRS, see UN HCR, 2012 Report, §43; CESCR General Comment No. 17, §35; CESCR, 2009 Guidelines, §70. See also CESCR General Comment No. 25, §6, §74 (‘States parties have to adopt policies and measures that expand the benefits of these new technologies while at the same time reducing their risks.’) (emphasis added), §57 (‘The precautionary principle should not hinder and prevent scientific progress, which is beneficial for humanity. Nonetheless, it should be able to address available risks for human health and the environment, inter alia.’) (emphasis added).
48 See Besson, ‘The “Human Right to Science”’, 2023. See also Christopher G. Weeramantry, ‘The Problems, the Project, and the Prognosis’, in Human Rights and Scientific and Technological Development: Studies on the Affirmative Use of Science and Technology for the Furtherance of Human Rights, ed. Christopher G. Weeramantry (New York: United Nations University Press, 1990); Chapman, ‘Towards an Understanding’; Schabas, ‘Looking Back’; Schabas, ‘Codifying the human right to science’, in this special issue. Note that I am not distinguishing here between the ‘science’ itself and its later ‘uses’ or ‘applications’. It is very difficult to do so, indeed, especially in areas of research that purport to be applied and used eventually. So, scientific knowledge itself may be considered to be able to harm as much as to benefit once it is applied and hence may be restricted with regard to that harm to come or risk of harm. Of course, this is not a matter of the scientists themselves knowing or foreseeing their research will harm or benefit, but of the human right duty-bearing State(s) only. As a result, I am not only considering cases of direct harming or benefiting by scientists in the course of their research, for instance through medical experiments.
49 See also Boggio, ‘The Right to Participate in and Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and Its Applications’, 49.
50 On science as a public good, see e.g. Shaver, ‘The Right to Science and Culture’; Besson, ‘The “Human Right to Science”’, 2023.
51 Besson, ‘The “Human Right to Science”’, 2023, by reference to Denise G. Réaume, ‘Individuals, Groups, and Rights to Public Goods’, University of Toronto Law Journal 38, no. 1 (1988): 10–11.
52 See e.g. ‘Global Citizens’ Assembly on Genome Editing: Connecting Citizens, Science and Global Governance’, Global Citizens’ Assembly on Genome Editing (blog), n.d., https://www.globalca.org/.
53 See CESCR General Comment No. 25, §56–7: ’56. Participation also includes the right to information and participation in controlling the risks involved in particular scientific processes and its applications. […] 57. […] Thus, in controversial cases, participation and transparency become crucial because the risks and potential of some technical advances or some scientific research should be made public in order to enable society, through informed, transparent and participatory public deliberation, to decide whether or not the risks are acceptable.’ (emphasis added).
54 See Besson, ‘The “Human Right to Science”’, 2023.
55 On the distinction between the human rights ‘duties’ of the States of jurisdiction and the ‘responsibilities’ for human rights of all other institutions and individual or collective subjects to cooperate and assist States in complying with their (jurisdictional) duties under international human rights law, see Samantha Besson, ‘The Bearers of Human Rights Duties and Responsibilities for Human Rights – A Quiet (R)Evolution’, Social Philosophy and Policy 32, no. 1 (2015): 244–68. For an application to the HRS, see Besson, ‘The Human Right to Science’, 2015.
56 See Besson, ‘The “Human Right to Science”’, 2023.
57 Ibid.
58 See Besson, ‘The Bearers of Human Rights and Responsibilities’, 2015; Besson, ‘The “Human Right to Science”’, 2023.
59 See e.g. UN HRC, 2012 Report, §68. See also CESCR General Comment No. 25, §52. See also Müller, ‘Remarks on the Venice Statement on the Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and Its Applications (Article 15(1)(b) ICESCR)’, 781–82.
60 See e.g. CESCR General Comment No. 25, §74: ‘[…] Nevertheless, there are no easy solutions given the varied nature of these new technologies and their complex effects. The Committee will therefore constantly monitor the impact of these new technologies on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. For the Committee, three elements remain very important: firstly, international cooperation should be enhanced in this field as these technologies need global regulations in order to be effectively managed.’ (emphasis added).
61 See Yotova, ‘Anticipatory duties under the human right to science and international biomedical law’, in this special issue.
62 See Christopher G. Weeramantry, ‘Conclusions and Recommendations’, in Human Rights and Scientific and Technological Development: Studies on the Affirmative Use of Science and Technology for the Furtherance of Human Rights, ed. Christopher G. Weeramantry (New York: United Nations University Press, 1990); Besson, ‘The Human Right to Science’, 2015. See also Amrei Müller, ‘Anticipation under the human right to science (HRS): sketching the public institutional framework. The example of scientific responses to the appearance of SARS-CoV-2’, in this special issue.
63 See Yotova, ‘Anticipatory duties under the human right to science and international biomedical law’, in this special issue; Hubert, ‘Between Scylla and Charybdis: the implications of the human right to science for regulating the harms and benefits of environmental science and technology’, in this special issue.
64 See Besson, La Due Diligence, §273, §436.
65 See e.g. CESCR General Comment No. 25, §74, §56.
66 See Samantha Besson, ‘Human Rights and Justification: A Reply to Mattias Kumm’, in Human Rights: Moral or Political? ed. Adam Etinson, vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 262–68.
67 See Besson, ‘The “Human Right to Science”’, 2023, by reference to Réaume, ‘Individuals, Groups, and Rights to Public Goods’, 10, 15: ‘there is no end product because, in a sense, [participatory goods] are never completed, but are continuously reinterpreted and re-created by each generation’. See also Michela Massimi, ‘A Human Rights Approach to Scientific Progress: The Deontic Framework’, in New Philosophical Perspectives on Scientific Progress, ed. Yafeng Shan (New York/London: Routledge, 2022), 392–412.
68 See Yotova, ‘Anticipatory duties under the human right to science and international biomedical law’, in this special issue; Hubert, ‘Between Scylla and Charybdis: the implications of the human right to science for regulating the harms and benefits of environmental science and technology’, in this special issue.
69 On those assessments, see Perruso, ‘Anticipation under the human right to science and under other social and cultural rights’, in this special issue.
70 See Besson, La Due Diligence, §223 et seq., §233.
71 See CESCR General Comment No. 25, §56: ‘[…] In this context, the precautionary principle plays an important role. This principle demands that, in the absence of full scientific certainty, when an action or policy may lead to unacceptable harm to the public or the environment, actions will be taken to avoid or diminish that harm. Unacceptable harm includes harm to humans or to the environment that is: (a) threatening to human life or health; (b) serious and effectively irreversible; (c) inequitable to present or future generations; or (d) imposed without adequate consideration of the human rights of those affected. Technological and human rights impact assessments are tools that help to identify potential risks early in the process and the use of scientific applications.’ (emphasis added).
72 See UNESCO and World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST), ‘The Precautionary Principle’ (Paris: UNESCO, March 2005), https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000139578.
73 See Besson, La Due Diligence, §555.
74 Merton, ‘The Normative Structure of Science’, 268.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Samantha Besson
Samantha Besson holds the Chair “International Law of Institutions” at the Collège de France in Paris and is Professor of Public International Law and European Law at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland.