Limits...
Science in the courtroom.

Dahl RC - Environ. Health Perspect. (2008)

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED EXCERPT
Please rate it.

Over the last 20 years, the term “junk science” has gained increasing use by defendants in toxic tort litigation as a pejorative phrase to discredit health effects data that do not meet some standard for scientific validity—or, some say, that are favorable to the interests of plaintiffs... Courts have responded by raising the bar that scientific evidence must exceed in order to be admitted as evidence... But has this change produced sound results? In a mini-monograph in this issue, 5 articles examine these questions and others that arise when examining the juncture of science and litigation... In addition, the authors write, “evaluations that are based on incomplete necropsy or histopathology, do not combine related tumor effects, fail to adjust for differences in animal survival, or incorrectly use historical control data would not be expected to produce reliable information on chemical carcinogenesis. ” Courts, meanwhile, have also taken steps to reduce the likelihood of “junk science” influencing juries... Boden and Ozonoff re-examine whether litigation-based science should be treated differently from other science offered as evidence in the courtroom... They conclude that it shouldn’t... In her article, Jasanoff agrees that restrictions placed on litigation-based science following Daubert are misconceived because the scientific knowledge needed to resolve legal disputes often arises only in response to litigation... In the last paper, William R... Freudenburg of the University of California, Santa Barbara, takes a critical look at the nature of bias itself, concluding that scientists oftentimes are not conscious of its influence on them... The problem, he writes, was “the temptation to start changing my own judgments. .. in response to their repeated insistence that it was precisely my independent and scientific credibility that they valued. ” The articles in the mini-monograph share a common thread: when science is used to serve the purposes of litigation or administrative proceedings, great care is needed to ensure its proper deployment, and a courtroom judge is probably not the appropriate person to decide on the reliability and relevance of scientific evidence... Furthermore, the perception that bias is inherently bad or avoidable may itself be biased.

Show MeSH
Should research conducted expressly for court use be held to higher standards than any other research?
© Copyright Policy - public-domain
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2199310&req=5

f1-ehp0116-a00037: Should research conducted expressly for court use be held to higher standards than any other research?


Science in the courtroom.

Dahl RC - Environ. Health Perspect. (2008)

Should research conducted expressly for court use be held to higher standards than any other research?
© Copyright Policy - public-domain
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2199310&req=5

f1-ehp0116-a00037: Should research conducted expressly for court use be held to higher standards than any other research?

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED EXCERPT
Please rate it.

Over the last 20 years, the term “junk science” has gained increasing use by defendants in toxic tort litigation as a pejorative phrase to discredit health effects data that do not meet some standard for scientific validity—or, some say, that are favorable to the interests of plaintiffs... Courts have responded by raising the bar that scientific evidence must exceed in order to be admitted as evidence... But has this change produced sound results? In a mini-monograph in this issue, 5 articles examine these questions and others that arise when examining the juncture of science and litigation... In addition, the authors write, “evaluations that are based on incomplete necropsy or histopathology, do not combine related tumor effects, fail to adjust for differences in animal survival, or incorrectly use historical control data would not be expected to produce reliable information on chemical carcinogenesis. ” Courts, meanwhile, have also taken steps to reduce the likelihood of “junk science” influencing juries... Boden and Ozonoff re-examine whether litigation-based science should be treated differently from other science offered as evidence in the courtroom... They conclude that it shouldn’t... In her article, Jasanoff agrees that restrictions placed on litigation-based science following Daubert are misconceived because the scientific knowledge needed to resolve legal disputes often arises only in response to litigation... In the last paper, William R... Freudenburg of the University of California, Santa Barbara, takes a critical look at the nature of bias itself, concluding that scientists oftentimes are not conscious of its influence on them... The problem, he writes, was “the temptation to start changing my own judgments. .. in response to their repeated insistence that it was precisely my independent and scientific credibility that they valued. ” The articles in the mini-monograph share a common thread: when science is used to serve the purposes of litigation or administrative proceedings, great care is needed to ensure its proper deployment, and a courtroom judge is probably not the appropriate person to decide on the reliability and relevance of scientific evidence... Furthermore, the perception that bias is inherently bad or avoidable may itself be biased.

Show MeSH