Skip to main content

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

6 The Ethics of Expert Testimony
Pages 27-29

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 27...
... what kind of communal behavior is it for which we're trying to develop norms." Sheila Jasanoff At first glance, it would seem that expert testimony should first of all adhere to a code of traditional ethics: thou shalt tell the truth, thou shalt not be intentionally inaccurate, and so on. It would also seem that the courts must enforce a standard of proper decorum and civil treatment of witnesses.
Read the entire page →
From page 28...
... A legal scholar added that they also may exaggerate the significance of their own inferences and even forget, as a brief for Daubert reminds us, "that in science accepted 'truth' is not a constant: that it evolves, either gradually or discontinuously.''l9 One participant commented, "We all want in the legal system increased transparency about the way in which expert knowledge is produced, and a transparency that lets us get at right-wrong issues behind the practices and the testimony of experts." At the moment, he added, "we're in the early days of doing this kind of work and understanding the communal standards to which either the science side or the law side ought to subscribe." One benefit of disclosure is that it creates a historical record about the provenance of research. With a "population" of studies about a given theme, one can see any association between the funding of the research and the outcome.
Read the entire page →
From page 29...
... He said that the field of medical research was better off for having set reasonable rules governing disclosure of conflict of interest, protection of human subjects, authorship, and research integrity, and that similar standards might be useful in the courtroom. SOME FAILINGS OF EXPERT WITNESSES A psychologist offered a critique of expert witnesses in his own field of psychology.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • expert testimony
  • thou shalt
  • own inferences
  • central question
  • genuine difficulty

  • particular expert
  • product doctrine
  • shalt tell
  • scientist added
  • governing disclosure

  • research integrity
  • ethical questions
  • science accepted
  • uncritically accept
  • participant commented

  • uncritical scientists
  • own field
  • established scientific
  • psychologist offered
  • attorneys uncritically

  • legal scholar
  • thinking instead
  • scholar added
  • participants struggled
  • humor lies

  • proper standards
  • intentionally inaccurate
  • question concerns
  • ethical thinking
  • develop norms


    • 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.