Skip to main content

The Age of Expert Testimony Science in the Courtroom: Report of a Workshop (2002) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

5 Can Scientists and Lawyers Get Along?
Pages 22-26

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 22...
... disputes in science are resolved over time by peer review and the scrutiny of the scientific community at large. Legal disputes are 22
Read the entire page →
From page 23...
... the Daubert trilogy directed the courts to look to the underlying foundation of the scientific testimony. Consequently, said an academic legal expert, the courts sometime seem to assume that the scientific community and the courts are examining the same concept of causation.
Read the entire page →
From page 24...
... A BALANCE BETWEEN "TRUTH" AND USEFUL INFORMATION The workshop returned to the different approaches of science and law as they try to determine causation. First, said a social scientist, courts err in the view that scientific studies invariably rest on some verifiable truth that is being determined in studies.
Read the entire page →
From page 25...
... And some courts have moved beyond science by creating new rules in the name of science that do not exist in the scientific community. Speakers who believe that some of the emerging standards are too restrictive offered the following three examples: · Epidemiology studies v.
Read the entire page →
From page 26...
... 26 THE AGE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY require a very high level of scientific certainty or probability, he said, exceeding likelier than not, would change the substantive law of torts. Similarly, requiring a 95 percent level of confidence that a probability estimate demonstrate an effect is an arbitrary custom chosen for the research community, but it is not necessarily dispositive in risk cases.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • animal studies
  • latency period
  • conclusions rest
  • lawyer noted
  • scientific testimony

  • waste spill
  • limited purpose
  • risks posed
  • tort litigation
  • causative uncertainty

  • approaches causation
  • scientific standards
  • participants discussed
  • multiple manufacturers
  • rule assumes

  • scientific process
  • dna technology
  • initial exposure
  • dna identification
  • courts assume

  • criminal law
  • underlying foundation
  • inconclusive hypotheses
  • pay half
  • daubert trilogy

  • testing inconclusive
  • scientific conclusions
  • epidemiological proof
  • beyond science
  • legal process


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.