In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court made its first
major pronouncement on the evaluation of scientific evidence, calling on judges to act
as gatekeepers for scientific knowledge and validity, despite lack of scientific training
among judges. Daubert offers the science studies community a case study for examining
how judges (and scientists acting as experts) engage in boundary-work and construct
scientific validity. In constructing scientific validity under Daubert, judges must evaluate
the scientific method behind a particular scientific claim, and will look to the parties'
experts and the relevant scientific community for assistance. To combat the oft-cited
problem of the battle of the experts, judges may be tempted to obtain assistance from
court-appointed neutral experts, an inquisitorial (rather than adversarial) system in the
civil law tradition of many European countries. The judicial evaluation of scientific
evidence, the resulting construction of scientific validity, and the push for a greater use
of court-appointed experts reveal judges' desire to segregate "objective" scientific facts
from aspects of the legal process that are infused with adversaries' values. Yet the
scientific and judicial construction of validity mixes empirical results and research
methods with the personal, political, and institutional values of judges and scientists.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bernstein, David.1990. Out of the frying pan and into the fire: Expert witness problems m toxic tort litigation. Review of Litigation10:117-59.
2.
Black, Bert.1988. Aunified theory of scientific evidence. Fordham Law Review56:595-695.
3.
Brannigan, Vincent M., Vicki M. Bier, and Christine Berg.1992. Risk, statistical inference and the law of evidence: The use of epidemiological data in toxic tort cases. Risk Analysis12 (3): 343-51.
4.
Brennan, Troyen.1987. Untangling causation issues in law and medicine: Hazardous substance litigation. Annals of Internal Medicine107:741-47.
5.
—. 1989. Helping courts with toxic torts: Some proposals regarding alternative methods for presenting and assessing scientific evidence in common law courts. University of Pittsburgh Law Review51:1-71.
6.
Burk, Dan.1993a. When scientific norms are abandoned in the courtroom . Chronicle of Higher Education, 17 March, B1-B2.
7.
—. 1993b. When scientists act like lawyers: The problem of adversary science. Jurimetrics33 (3): 363-76.
8.
Castel, P. Kevin.1993. Bye to "Frye": High court sets standards for admitting expert testimony. New York Law Journal, 8 July, 1 (col. 1).
9.
Cecil, Joseph S., and Thomas E. Willging.1992. Defining a role for court-appointed experts. Federal Judicial Center Directions4:6-17.
10.
—. 1993. Court appointed experts: Defining the role of experts appointed under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
11.
Chesboro, Kenneth J.1994. Taking Daubert's focus seriously: The methodology/conclusion distinction. Cardozo Law Review15 (6-7): 1745-53.
12.
Chubin, Daryl E., and Edward J. Hackett .1990. Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy. Albany: SUNY Press .
13.
Collins, Harry M.1985. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.
14.
Conk, George.1993. Commentary: Daubert v. Merrell Dow. Shepard's Expert and Scientific Evidence Quarterly1 (1): 55.
15.
Denemark, Howard.1993. The search for scientific knowledge in federal courts in the post-Frye era: Refuting the assertion that law seeks justice while science seeks truth. High Technology Law Journal8 (2): 235-66.
16.
Foster, William.1897. Expert testimony—Prevalent complaints and proposed remedies. Harvard Law Review11:169-86.
17.
Friedman, Richard D.1994. The death and transfiguration of Frye. Jurimetrics34:133-48.
18.
Gerber, R.J.1987. Victory and truth: The adversary system and its ethics . Arizona State Law Journal19:3-25.
19.
Giannelli, Paul.1980. The admissibility of novel scientific evidence: Frye v. United States a half century later. Columbia Law Review80:1197-1250.
20.
—. 1994. Daubert: Interpreting the federal rules of evidence . Cardozo Law Review15: 1999-2026.
21.
Giannelli, Paul, and Edward J. Imwinkelreid.1993. Scientific evidence, 2nd ed. Charlottesville, VA: Michie-Butterworth.
22.
Gieryn, Thomas F.1983. Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional identities of scientists . American Sociological Review48:781-95.
23.
—. 1994. Boundaries of science. In Handbook of science, technology, and society, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald Markle, James Peterson, and Trevor Pinch.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
24.
Graham, John D., Laura C. Green, and Marc J. Roberts.1988. In search of safety: Chemical and cancer risk. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
25.
Green, Michael.1992. Expert witnesses and sufficiency of evidence in toxic substances litigation: The legacy of Agent Orange and Bendectin litigation . Northwestern University Law Review86:643-99.
26.
Grossman, Steven.1992. Science and scientific evidence. Idea32:179-202.
27.
Hackett, Edward J.1994. A social control perspective on scientific misconduct . Journal of Higher Education65 (3): 242-60.
28.
Hand, Learned.1901. Considerations regarding expert testimony. Harvard Law Review15:40-58.
29.
Haraway, Donna.1989. Printate visions. New York: Routledge, Chaprnan, Hall.
30.
Huber, Peter.1991. Galileo's revenge: Junk science in the courtroom . New York: Basic Books.
31.
Hull, David.1988. Science as a process. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
32.
Jasanoff, Sheila.1988. Judicial construction of scientific evidence. In Critical perspectives in non-academic science and engineering, edited by P. Durbin, 215-38. Bethlehem, PA : Lehigh University Press.
33.
—. 1993. What judges should know about the sociology of science . Judicature77:77-82.
Kuhn, Thomas S.1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
Langbein, John.1985. The German advantage in civil procedure. University of Chicago Law Review52 (4): 823-66.
37.
Lasagna, Louis, and Sheila Shulman.1993. Bendectin and the language of causation . InPhantom risk: Scientific inference and the law, edited by Kenneth Foster, Peter Huber, and David Berstein , 101-22. Cambridge : MIT Press.
38.
Latour, Bruno.1987. Science in action. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.
39.
Lee, Tahirih.1988. Court appointed experts and judicial reluctance: A proposal to amend Rule 706 for the Federal Rules of Evidence. Yale Law and Policy Review6:480-503.
40.
Loevinger, Lee.1993. Standards of proof in law and science. InterdisciplinaryScience Reviews18 (2):144-52.
41.
—. 1995. Science as evidence. Jurimetrics35:153-89.
42.
Longino, Helen E.1990. Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity inscientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
43.
Mahoney, Michael J.1977. Publication prejudice: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research1 (2): 161-75.
44.
Marshall, Elliot.1993. Supreme Court to weigh science. Science259: 588-91.
45.
Merton, Robert K. [1942] 1973. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46.
Mervis, Jeffrey.1993. Supreme Court to judges: Start thinking like scientists . Science261:22.
47.
Moore, Kimberly S.1991. Exploring the inconsistencies of scrutinizing expert testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Texas Technology Law Review22:885-902.
48.
Myers, Greg.1985. Texts as knowledge claims: The social construction of two biology articles. Social Studies of Science15 (4): 593-630.
49.
Poulter, Susan.1992. Science and toxic torts: Is there a rational solution to the problem of causation?High Technology Journal7:189-256.
50.
Resnik, Judith.1982. Managerial judges. Harvard Law Review96:376-448.
51.
Rossi, Faust R1991. Expert witnesses. Chicago: Section of Litigation, American Bar Association.
52.
Rustad, Michael, and Thomas Koenig.1993. The Supreme Court and junk social science: Selective distortion in amicus briefs. North Carolina Law Review72 (1-3): 91-162.
53.
Sanders, Joeseph.1992. The Bendectin litigation: A case study in the life cycle of mass torts. Hastings Law Journal43:301-402.
54.
—. 1993. Scientific validity, admissibility, and mass torts after Daubert. Minnesota Law Review78:1387-1441.
55.
Singer, Maxine.1985. Genetics and the law: A scientist's view. Yale Law & Policy Review3:315-35.
56.
Smith, Roger, and Brian Wynne , eds. 1989. Expert evidence: Interpreting science in the law. London: Routledge .
57.
Strier, Franklin.1992. What can the American adversary system learn from an inquisitorial system of justice?Judicature76 (3): 109-11.
58.
Weinstein, Jack B.1986. Improving expert testimony. University of Richmond Law Review20:473-97.
59.
Wynne, Brian.1989. Establishing the rules of laws: Constructing expert authority . In Expert evidence: Interpreting science in the law, edited by Roger Smith and Brian Wynne, 23-55. London: Routledge .
