RSS Feed
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Image by maveric2003 via Flickr
As long as I’m following the lead of Lawrence Solum at the Legal Theory Blog, I want to recommend the following new article: Judicial Analysis of Complex & Cutting-Edge Science in the Daubert Era: Epidemiologic Risk Assessment as a Test Case for Reform Strategies by Andrew Jurs. From the abstract:
One way to bring more science back into the courthouse, or to the judge’s chambers, is to permit the appointment of a science consultant under a modified Federal Rule of Evidence 706. For an even smaller subset of more complicated cases, advanced science procedures are needed. A science panel approach, using a modified arbitration panel format, or a centralized court of scientific jurisdiction would offer significant advantages to the current Daubert system. Other discrete individual reforms solve other weaknesses in current Daubert analysis.
This is one I need to read through more carefully, because I think the issue of brining better scientific understanding into the judicial system is an important one. After all, even the most scientifically-literate judge cannot really be expected to have a full understanding of all areas of science. I also believe that, when it comes to expert testimony, our adversarial system (with “dueling experts”) can let the court down. Thus, a different, more independent process for evaluating science would be beneficial.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Mathematical Illiteracy (schneier.com)
- National Academies: we need better science in the courtroom (arstechnica.com)
- Science, pseudoscience, and the law (inpropriapersona.com)
I'm currently a graduate student of the history of law and technology at the University of California, San Diego. I also provide law and technology consulting services.
Additionally, I'm a non-practicing lawyer and former developer/sysadmin at a biotech non-profit. For more about me and my work, see 
