This article examines some of the interactions between law, science, and society taking place during a trial (in Victorian England). By focusing on a restricted set of scientific and nonscientific actors (the law-set, a derivation of the core-set) engaged in negotiating the meaning, relevance, and reliability of scientific (here medical) evidence, the article illustrates how the categories—law, science, and society—are inextricably interrelated in the legal negotiations and outcome. The introduction of scientific evidence into adversarial legal settings produces strategies, opinions, and claims that are not shaped solely by scientists, lawyers, or legal processes. The situated law-science negotiations provide a site where social order and scientific knowledges are mutually constituted. The outcome of specific law-science interactions will be open to a range of readings and constraints that are not reducible to some putatively correct scientific understanding nor adequately described as the distortion of scientific evidence by the legal system.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abraham, J.1994. Distributing the benefit of the doubt: Scientists, regulators, and drug safety. Science, Technology, & Human Values19:493-522.
2.
Abraham, J., and J. Sheppard. 1997. Democracy, technocracy, and the secret state of medicines control: Expert and nonexpert perspectives. Science, Technology,&Human Values22:139-167.
3.
Allen, R.1986. A reconceptualisation of civil trials. Boston University Law Review66:401-437.
4.
Allen, R.1991. The nature of juridical proof. Cardozo Law Review13:373-422.
5.
Atkinson, J. M.1979. Sequencing and shared attentiveness to court proceedings. In Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, edited by G. Psathas, 257-286. New York: Irvington.
6.
Atkinson, J. M., and P. Drew. 1979. Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.
7.
Bennett, W. L.1978. Storytelling in criminal trials: A model of social judgment. Quarterly Journal of Speech64:1-22.
8.
Bernstein, D.1996. Junk science in the United States and the Commonwealth. Yale Journal of International Law21:123-182.
9.
Bloor, D.1976/1991. Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
10.
Callon, M.1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fisherman of St Brieux Bay. In Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge, edited by J. Law, 196-229. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
11.
Cambrosio, A., P. Keating, and M. MacKenzie. 1990. Scientific practice in the courtroom: The construction of sociotechnical identities in a biotechnology patent dispute. Social Problems37:272-293.
12.
Cambrosio, A., C. Limoges, and D. Provonost. 1990. Representing biotechnology: An ethnography of Quebec Science Policy. Social Studies of Science20:195-227.
13.
Campbell, B.1985. Uncertainty as symbolic action in disputes among experts. Social Studies of Science15:429-453.
14.
Carlen, P.1976. Magistrates justice. London: Martin Robinson.
15.
Casper, J. L.1863-1865. Handbook for the practice of forensic medicine, based upon personal experience, 4 vols. (Trans. G. W. Balfour). London.
16.
Cohen, W.1996. Sex scandal: The private parts of Victorian fiction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
17.
Collins, H. M.1981. The place of the ‘core-set’ in modern science: Social contingency with methodological propriety in science. History of Science19:6-19.
18.
Collins, H. M.1985. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage Ltd.
19.
Collins, H. M.1988. Public experiments and displays of virtuosity: The core-set revisited. Social Studies of Science18:725-748.
20.
Collins, H. M.1999. Tantalus and the aliens: Publications, audiences and the search for gravitational waves. Social Studies of Science29:163-198.
21.
Collins, H. M., and T. Pinch. 1982. Frames of meaning: The social construction of extraordinary science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
22.
Daston, L., and Gallison, P.1992. The image of objectivity. Representations40:81-128.
23.
Drew, P.1992. Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a rape trial. In Talk at work, edited by P. Drew and J. Heritage, 470-520. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Edmond, G.1998a. Azaria’s accessories: The social (legal scientific) construction of the chamberlains’ guilt and innocence. Melbourne University Law Review22:396-441.
25.
Edmond, G.1998b. Down by science: Context and commitment in the lay response to incriminating scientific evidence during a murder trial. Public Understanding of Science7:83-111.
26.
Edmond, G.1998c. Science in court. Negotiating the meaning of a “scientific” experiment during a murder trial and some limits to legal deconstruction for the public understanding of law and science. Sydney Law Review20:361-401.
27.
Edmond, G.2000a. Deflating Daubert: Kumho Tire Co v Carmichael and the inevitability of general acceptance (Frye). University of New South Wales Law Journal23:38-62.
28.
Edmond, G.2000b. Judicial representations of scientific evidence. Modern Law Review63:216-251.
29.
Edmond, G.2001. “Interpreting strategy, legal procedure and medical evidence in the arraignment and trial of R v Boulton and Park and others (1871). ”
30.
Edmond, G., and D. Mercer. 1997. Scientific literacy and the jury: Reconsidering jury “competence”. Public Understanding of Science6:329-357.
31.
Edmond, G., and D. Mercer. 1998a. Representing the sociology of scientific knowledge and law. Science Communication19:307-327.
32.
Edmond, G., and D. Mercer. 1998b. Trashing “junk” science. Stanford Technology Law Review. Available: http://stlr.Stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/98_STLR_3
33.
Edmond, G., and D. Mercer. 1999. Juggling science: From polemic to pastiche. Social Epistemology13:215-233.
34.
Edmond, G., and D. Mercer. 2000. Litigation life: Law-science knowledge construction in (Bendectin) mass toxic tort litigation. Social Studies of Science30:265-316.
35.
Fleck, L.1979. Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
36.
Foster, K. R., and P. W. Huber. 1997. Judging science: Scientific knowledge and the federal courts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
Foucault, M.1967. Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the Age of Reason. London: Tavistock.
38.
Foucault, M.1991. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin.
39.
Fuchs, S., and S. Ward. 1994. What is deconstruction, and where and when does it take place? Making facts in science, building cases in law. American Sociological Review59:481-500.
40.
Garfinkel, H.1984. Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
41.
Gieryn, T., 1983. Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review48:781-795.
42.
Gieryn, T., 1998. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
Gieryn, T., G. M. Bevins, and S. C. Zehr. 1985. Professionalization of American scientists: Public science in the creation/evolution trials. American Sociological Review50:392-409.
44.
Gilbert, N., and M. Mulkay. 1984. Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
45.
Golan, T.1999. The history of scientific expert testimony in courtroom. Science in Context12:7-32.
46.
Goodrich, P.1986. Reading the law: A critical introduction to legal method and techniques. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
47.
Goodwin, C.1994. Professional vision. American Anthropologist96:606-633.
48.
Green, J.1985. Media sensationalism and science: The case of the criminal chromosome. In Expository science: Forms and functions of popularisation, edited by T. Shinn and R Whitley, 139-161. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.
49.
Green, M.1996. Bendectin and birth defects: The challenge of mass toxic substances litigation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
50.
Hand, L.1901. Historical and practical considerations regarding expert testimony. Harvard Law Review15:40-58.
51.
Hans, V. P., and W. S. Lofquist. 1992. Juror’s judgments of business liability in tort cases: Implications for the litigation explosion. Law and Society Review26:85-115.
52.
Hensler, D.1989. Resolving mass toxic torts: Myths and realities. University of Illinois Law Review1989:89-104.
53.
Hensler, D., and M. A. Peterson. 1993. Understanding mass personal injury litigation: A socio-legal analysis. Brooklyn Law Review59:961-1061.
54.
Hilgartner, S.1990. The dominant view of popularisation: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science20:519-539.
55.
Huber, P. W.1991. Galileo’s revenge: Junk science in the courtroom. New York: Basic Books.
56.
Jackson, B. S.1988. Law, fact and narrative coherence. Liverpool, UK: Deborah Charles.
57.
Jasanoff, S.1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58.
Jasanoff, S.1992. What judges should know about the sociology of science. Jurimetrics32:345-359.
59.
Jasanoff, S.1995. Science at the bar: Law, science, and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60.
Jasanoff, S.1998. The eye of everyman: Witnessing DNA in the Simpson trial. Social Studies of Science28:713-740.
61.
Johnson-McGrath, J.1995. Speaking for the dead: Forensic pathologists and criminal justice in the United States. Science, Technology, & Human Values20:438-459.
62.
Jones, C.A. G.1994. Expert witnesses: Science, medicine, and the practice of law. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
63.
Kairys, D., ed. 1982. The politics of law: A progressive critique. New York: Pantheon.
64.
Kalven, H., and H. Zeisel. 1966. The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
65.
Kennedy, D.1986. Freedom and constraint in adjudication: A critical phenomenology. Journal of Legal Education36:518-562.
66.
King, M., and F. Kaganas. 1998. The risks and dangers of experts in court. In Science in Court, edited by H. Reece, 221-242. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
67.
Latour, B.1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68.
Lynch, M.1996. Ethnomethodology and the logic of practice. Unpublished manuscript.
69.
Lynch, M.1998. The discursive production of uncertainty: The OJ Simpson “dream team” and the sociology of knowledge machine. Social Studies of Science28:829-868.
70.
Lynch, M., and D. Bogen. 1996. The spectacle of history: Speech, text, and memory at the Iran-Contra hearings. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
71.
Lynch, M., and S. Jasanoff, eds. 1998. Contested identities: Science, law and forensic practice. Social Studies of Science28:675-868.
72.
McBarnet, D.1983. Conviction: Law, the state and the construction of justice. London: Macmillan.
73.
McConville, M., A. Sanders, and R. Leng. 1991. The case for the prosecution: Police suspects and the construction of criminality. London: Routledge.
74.
McGarity, T. O.1991. The internal structure of EPA rulemaking. Law and Contemporary Problems54:57-111.
75.
Michael, M.1996. Ignoring science: Discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science. In Misunderstanding science, edited by A. Irwin and B. Wynne, 107-125. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
76.
Michael, M., and L. Birke. 1994. Enrolling the core-set: The case of the animal experimentation controversy. Social Studies of Science24:81-95.
77.
Neeson, C. R.1979. Reasonable doubt and permissive inferences: The value of complexity. Harvard Law Review92:1187-1225.
78.
Neeson, C. R.1985. The evidence or the event? On judicial proof and the acceptability of verdicts. Harvard Law Review98:1357-1392.
79.
Nicholson, D.1994. Truth, reason and justice: Epistemology and politics in evidence discourse. Modern Law Review57:726-744.
80.
Nobels, R., and D. Schiff. 1995. Miscarriages of justice: A systems approach. Modern Law Review58:299-320.
81.
Note. 1995. Confronting the new challenges of scientific evidence. Harvard Law Review108:1481-1605.
82.
Osborne, J. W.1990. Judicial/technical assessment of novel scientific evidence. University of Illinois Law Review, 497-546.
83.
Oteri, J. S, M. G. Weinberg, and M. S. Pinnales. 1982. Cross-examination of chemists in drugs cases. In Science in context: Readings in the sociology of science, edited by B. Barnes and D. Edge, 250-259.
84.
Peller, G.1985. The metaphysics of American law. California Law Review73:1151-1290.
85.
Pinch, T.1981. The sun-set: The presentation of certainty in scientific life. Social Studies of Science11:131-158.
86.
Pinch, T.1986. Confronting nature: The sociology of neutrino detection. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.
87.
Pollner, M.1979. Explicative transaction: Making and managing meaning in traffic court. In Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, edited by G. Psathas, 227-255. New York: Irvington.
88.
Potter, J.1996. Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage Ltd.
89.
Quayle, D.1991. Civil justice reform. American Law Review41:559-569.
90.
Rabin, R. L.1992. A sociolegal history of the tobacco tort litigation. Stanford Law Review44:853-878.
91.
Rudwick, M.1985. The great Devonian controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago.
92.
Sacks, H.1972. Notes on police assessment of moral character. In Studies in social interaction, edited by D. Sudnow, 280-293. New York: Free Press.
93.
Sanders, J.1993. From science to evidence: The testimony on causation in the Bendectin cases. Stanford Law Review46:1-86.
94.
Schuck, P.1986. The role of judges in settling complex cases: The agent orange example. University of Chicago Law Review53:337-365.
95.
Schuck, P.1987. Agent orange on trial: Mass toxic disasters in the courts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
96.
Shackley, S., and B. Wynne. 1996. Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority. Science, Technology, & Human Values21:275-302.
97.
Shapin, S.1994. A social history of truth: Civility and science in seventeenth-century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
98.
Sinfield, A., 1994. The Wilde century: Effeminacy, Oscar Wilde and the queer movement. London: Cassell.
99.
Smith, R.1981. Trial by medicine: Insanity and responsibility in Victorian trials. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh Press.
100.
Smith, R.1988. The trials of forensic science. Science as Culture4:71-94.
101.
Smith, R., and B. Wynne, eds. 1989. Expert evidence: Interpreting science in the law. London: Routledge.
102.
Solomon, S, and E. Hackett. 1996. Setting boundaries between science and law: Lessons from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Science, Technology, & Human Values21:131-156.
103.
Star, S. L.1985. Scientific work as uncertainty. Social Studies of Science15:391-427.
104.
Tardieu, A. 1857. Etude médico-légale sur les attentants aux murs, Paris.
105.
Taylor, A. S.1846. A manual of medical jurisprudence, 2d ed.London.
106.
Teubner, G.1998. Legal irritants: Good faith in British law or how unifying law ends up in new divergences. Modern Law Review61:11-32.
107.
Tribe, L.1971. Trial by mathematics. Harvard Law Review84:1329-1393.
Upchurch, C.2000. Forgetting the unthinkable: Cross-dressers and British society in the case of the Queen vs. Boulton and others. Gender & History12:127-157.
110.
Wagenaar, W. A., P. J. van Koppen, and H.F.M. Crombag. 1993. Anchored narratives: The psychology of criminal evidence. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
111.
Watson, G.1994. A comparison of social constructionist and ethnomethodological descriptions of how a judge distinguished between the erotic and the obscene. Philosophy of the Social Science24:405-425.
112.
Weeks, J.1991. Inverts, perverts and Mary-Annes: Male prostitution and the regulation of homosexuality in England in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. London: Rivers Oram.
113.
White, H.1987. The content and the form: Narrative discourse and historical representation. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Wynne, B.1982. Rationality and ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and nuclear decisions in Britain. Chalfont St Giles: British Society for the History of Science.
116.
Wynne, B.1989. Establishing the rules of law. In Expert evidence: Interpreting science in the law, edited by R. Smith and B. Wynne, 23-55. London: Routledge.
117.
Yearley, S.1989. Bog standards: Science and conservation at a public inquiry. Social Studies of Science19:421-438.
118.
Yellin, J.1981. High technology and the courts: Nuclear power and the need for reform. Harvard Law Review94:489-560.
