Executive director : M. JUFFE, Doctor in liberal Arts and Human sciences (philosophy), professor of sociology at the national of Ponts et Chaussées.

The major risk is a predictable or unpredictable danger that provokes a damage of irreversible nature and which reparation is inestimable. All technologies generate risks. Only prevention is worth a responsible management. Provoking acts that would generate unpredictable risks is not admissible, considering the dramatic consequences that it would have on the environment and life in general .A catastrophic event, like a radioactive contamination at very high levels of territory, has consequences that can be irreversible for human and the environment, because it provokes irreparable damages.
Contamination will endure, prohibiting any normal and durable development of animal or vegetal life.

Previous civilizations never knew this kind of major risk. Destructions were geographically localized. Today, they are a threat to the entire world. During wars, the notion of irreversibility was reduced to a limited elimination of soldiers and civilians. Today, the new technologies can lead to the brutal eradication of all forms of life. A Curative way becomes problematic, or even unthinkable. Only a Preventive way remains. So in order to prevent, we must know how to assess the causes to evaluate the effects. Only a long-term reasoned and aware research can prevent those effects by making them predictable. The action must be certain, not random, and its effects must be controlled in space and time. No swift application of technologies can be justified without a preventive study.

A universal law should therefore impose an agenda to the entire public and private research :
1. The obligation for the researchers:
· To not dissociate their results from applications susceptible to be introduced in society.
· To evaluate the predictable risks and to anticipate them throughout measures of prevention that would be previously and clearly announced.
· From the very start of the research program, to associate jurists and scientists, knowing that the latter will acquire necessary juridical and economic bases, (which is not currently the case).
· To plan consequent budgets for the research dealing with prevention.
· To prohibit the application of technologies that are susceptible to provoke major and unpredictable risks that would cause irreversible damages.

 2. The obligation for the decision-makers:
· To inform populations of the programs, whether those planned or current, in order to avoid just putting them in front the facts.
· To be able to justify the public funding of research during the conception and the experiments, and then throughout a fast and intelligible publication of the results.
· While deciding of the application phase, the political instances must proceed to a large public consultation implying scientists, jurists and also some representatives of civil society.
· To prohibit any research program susceptible to provoke major unpredictable risks.
· To prohibit collusion between public and private research that would lead the obtained results to be used for the sole profit despise any kind of ethics.
· To control the quality and opportunity of private research programs.
· To educate, inform and dialogue with all the representatives of civil society.
3. The obligation for civil society:
· To participate to the debates proposed by the decision-makers, hence taking responsibility in their role as citizens.
· To constitute a force of propositions adapted to situations experienced in the field.
· To behave like a citizen, collectively and individually, which would harmoniously contribute to the evolution of the structures.

The Commission itself conducts its reflections on:
· The definition of responsibilities in the creation and the application of new technologies and their effects on society.
· The juridical mechanisms that manage methods of study of prevention.
· The prohibitions inherent to major risks and the means that are used to prevent the triggering of an irreversible process.