There’s something to be said for having an abundance of caution. And perhaps that, along with the Hippocratic Oath — “First, do no harm” — is what led to the Pennsylvania Medical Society last week to call for a moratorium on new shale gas drilling in the commonwealth.

The PMS’ resolution, approved unanimously by its 300-member house of delegates, includes some good ideas (studying fracking’s public health impacts; creating a health registry). But putting the kibosh on expansion by an industry that has drilled more than 9,000 oil and gas wells statewide since 2005 and is set to begin a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure project in Beaver County is, simply put, a bad prescription.

There is no doubt that fracking is controversial. It is inconvenient — smelly, noisy and invasive — to many residents. It is often inscrutable, as drilling companies seek to keep their long term plans and industrial techniques proprietary. Questions about how the process might impact public health over the long term are legitimate.

There is also no doubt that the system is not perfect. Mistakes can and do occur, and the results — from groundwater contamination to well fires and explosions — can manifest dramatically.

But the PMS’ contention that fracking’s dangers are so clear and immanent that a moratorium is warranted is an overreach that ignores science and experience.

Last year the federal Environmental Protection Agency published a study that concluded there was no evidence of “widespread, systemic impacts,” to things like drinking water supplies — essentially proof that the process can be, and has been, performed safely in the vast majority of instances.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether regulations tied to the industry are sufficient or insufficient; whether research into the public health effects of fracking are fatally flawed or simply incomplete. But it’s not realistic to propose a wholesale cessation of drilling activity.

At this point, a more even-handed path forward might have focused on aggressive regulation of drilling practices and research on quality-of-life issues associated (however inconclusively) with fracking. Instead, the PMS’ abundance of caution resulted in a very reckless proposal.