Public Lab Research note


Article: "The Difference Between Scientific Evidence And The Scientific Method"

by warren | May 01, 2012 18:18 | 1,399 views | 0 comments | #1873 | 1,399 views | 0 comments | #1873 01 May 18:18

I came across this fascinating review about the latest edition of a text used by many lawyers and judges -- the "Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence" -- which lays out recommendations on how to make use of scientific evidence in the courtroom.

"The Difference Between Scientific Evidence And The Scientific Method

by Max Kennerly, litigationandtrial.com, April 23rd 2012

Scientific evidence plays a crucial role in virtually all mass torts cases (whether prescription drugs, environmental exposures, or consumer products), and so, when the National Research Council and the Federal Judicial Center published the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, lawyers took note. Apart from Supreme Court opinions — which these days often raise more questions than they answer, which is partly why Daubert is still the leading case twenty years later — the Manual is likely the primary reference federal judges use to guide them in deciding what scientific evidence they allow into a jury trial.

Scientific evidence is one of those rare areas of law upon which every lawyer agrees: we are all certain that everyone else is wrong.

Defense lawyers think judges too easily allow in “junk science” from plaintiffs, citing the silicon breast implant litigation, which resulted in over $3 billion in settlements and compensation for autoimmune injuries that most scientists now agree weren’t caused by the implants. Plaintiff’s lawyers, in turn, think the silicon implant case is the exception that proves the rule, and that courts these days more frequently use Daubert and Frye to destroy plaintiffs’ cases by wrongly excluding from trial valid scientific and medical testimony (here’s an example involving vinyl chloride and cancer, and another involving Tylenol and liver damage, and don’t forget Kumho Tire’s indefensible exclusion of an eminently qualified tire tread separation expert), while allowing defendants to bring in all kinds of unscientific nonsense (like the natural forces nonsense in shoulder dystocia lawsuits that’s allowed everywhere except New York).

(In the criminal context, prosecutors complain about the “CSI Effect,” the claim that jurors today expect forensic evidence in every case, while criminal defense lawyers counter that the forensic evidence offered is often garbage and speculation from people with a diploma mill degree.)

Read more: http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2012/04/articles/litigation/scientific-evidence-and-the-scientific-method


0 Comments

Login to comment.