Scientific Inference in the Laboratory and the Law
University of California, Riverside
American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 95, No. S1, pp. S121-S128, 2005
The Coronado Conference: Scientific Evidence and Public Policy Paper
Following the Supreme Court's Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc. decision, courts have struggled in reviewing scientific evidence and appear to have appreciated insufficiently the nature of scientific reasoning. To assist their evidentiary reviews, courts need to appreciate both scientific complexity and ignorance about human toxicity caused by the universe of chemical substances. Conscientious, well-motivated, respectable experts can come to different conclusions about scientific evidence without making obvious mistakes and without being charlatans. So that justice is done between parties, courts need to allow for reasonable scientific disagreement to avoid excluding from trials respectable experts and all relevant scientific evidence. The public health community can assist courts to understand ranges of scientific evidence and to recognize the reasonableness of scientific disagreements.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 8
Keywords: Scientific evidence, Expert testimony, Daubert
JEL Classification: K13, K23, K32Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: November 30, 2005
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.360 seconds