Skip to main content

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

7 Scientific Research in the Context of the Legal System
Pages 30-34

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 30...
... The insight grew out of eyewitness identification research that began in the 1970s. The problem was that the identification of guilty parties by eyewitnesses had great credibility in the courtroom even though the error rate of mistaken identification was high.
Read the entire page →
From page 31...
... they developed their own policy recommendations based on evidence, learned which policy makers could effect change, and lobbied those policy makers for change. RESEARCH DESIGNED TO INFLUENCE COURT PROCEEDINGS The session moderator, a scientist, suggested that courts may ask several questions about research whose results are used to influence court proceedings.
Read the entire page →
From page 32...
... Another participant described how industry-sponsored drug tests for the Food and Drug Administration are performed. "Admitting new products is one of the most critical regulatory decisions we make as a nation," he said, "and it's critical to get our studies right on safety and efficacy." Drug studies are financed by the same prescription drug companies who intend to profit from the drugs; a similar process is followed for decisions about medical devices, food additives, and animal drugs.
Read the entire page →
From page 33...
... STRUCTURING RESEARCH FOR LITIGATION An engineer described his own initial reluctance to serve as an expert witness and said that he had decided to testify because of the need to "get credible technical testimony into the courtroom." He said that the cases had differed widely in subject matter and type of procedure. Even though he accepted funding from litigants for research on several specific questions, he felt that his work was impartial, his results interesting, and his testimony consequential as evidence.
Read the entire page →
From page 34...
... He suggested a series of simple principles by which experts could both participate meaningfully in litigation and also maintain their integrity: · Design and perform the work on your own professional and ethical terms · Publish all results in peer-reviewed journals, irrespective of the outcome Strive for equal objectivity whether working for the plaintiff or the defendant.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • eyewitness identification
  • breast implants
  • influence court
  • identification research
  • court proceedings

  • social scientist
  • populations exposed
  • toxic chemicals
  • extensive psychological
  • firms representing

  • future product
  • tried explaining
  • research meet
  • chemicals usually
  • usually arises

  • own policy
  • prescription drug
  • breast implant
  • effect change
  • little independent

  • justice researchers
  • substantial body
  • dow corning
  • food additives
  • workplace studies

  • independent studies
  • study drew
  • policy recommendations
  • silicone breast
  • answer questions


    • 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.