The sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) has become widely cited in policy contexts including discussion of law, science, and society. The following article provides a textual examination of how some of the work of eminent SSK and law scholar Sheila Jasanoff has been received in U.S. legal scholarship. Focusing on debate sparked by the 1993 Supreme Court case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the authors argue that textual evidence suggests a resistance within U.S. legal scholarship to the incorporation of the more radical implications of SSK perspectives.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Atiyah, P.S.1987. American tort law in crisis. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies7:279-301.
2.
Ayala, F.
, and B. Black. 1993. Science and the courts. American Scientist81:230-239.
3.
Barnes, B.1990. Review: Expert evidence. Social Studies of Science20:757-760.
4.
Bernstein, D.1994. The admissibility of scientific evidence after Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Cardozo Law Review15:2139-2181.
5.
Black, B.1988. A unified theory of scientific evidence. Fordham Law Review56:595-695.
6.
Black, B.1994. The Supreme Court's view of science: Has Daubert exorcised the certainty demon?Cardozo Law Review15:2129-2137.
7.
Black, B.
, F. Ayala, and C. Saffran-Brinks. 1994. Science and the law in the wake of Daubert: A new search for scientific knowledge. Texas Law Review72:715-802.
8.
Blake, E.1988. Rumors of crisis: Considering the insurance crisis and tort reform in an information vacuum. Emory Law Journal37:401-441.
9.
Blomquist, B. F.1991. Science, toxic tort law, and expert evidence: A reaction to Peter Huber. Arkansas Law Review44:629-653.
10.
Chan, E. J.1995. The “brave new world” of Daubert: True peer review, editorial peer review, editorial peer review and scientific validity. New York University Law Review70:100-134.
11.
Chesebro, K.1993. Galileo's retort: Peter Huber's junk scholarship. American University Law Review42:1637-1726.
12.
Chesebro, K.1994. Taking Daubert`s “focus” seriously: The methodological/conclusion distinction. Cardozo Law Review15:1745-1753.
13.
Chubin, D.
, and E. Hackett. 1990. Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
14.
Collins, H.
, and T. Pinch. 1993. The Golem: What everyone should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 61 LW 4805, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
16.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 43 F.3d 1315 (1995).
17.
Dreyfuss, R. C.1995. Is science a special case? The admissibility of scientific evidence afterDaubert v. Merrell Dow. Texas Law Review73:1779-1804.
18.
Edge, D.
1995. Reinventing the wheel. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Peterson, and Trevor Pinch, 3-23. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Edmond, G.
, and D. Mercer. 1996a. Manifest destiny: Law and science in America. Metascience10:40-58.
20.
Edmond, G.
, and D. Mercer. 1996b. Recognising Daubert: What judges should know about falsification. Expert Evidence5:29-42.
21.
Edmond, G.
, and D. Mercer. 1997a. Keeping “junk” history, philosophy and sociology of science out of the courtroom: Problems with the reception of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Implications for Australian evidence law. University of New South Wales Law Journal20:48-100.
22.
Edmond, G.
, and D. Mercer. 1997b. Scientific literacy and the jury: Reconsidering jury “competence.”Public Understanding of Science6:329-357.
23.
Edmond, G.
, and D. Mercer. 1997c. The secret life of (mass) torts: The social construction of law-science knowledges. University of New South Wales Law Journal20:666-702.
24.
Eisenberg, T.
, and J. A. Henderson. 1990. The quiet revolution in products liability: An empirical study of legal change. UCLA Law Review37:479-533.
25.
Eisenberg, T.
, and J. A. Henderson. 1992. Inside the quiet revolution. UCLA Law Review39:731-810.
26.
Faigman, D.1995. Mapping the labyrinth of scientific evidence. Hastings Law Journal46:555-579.
27.
Faigman, E. P.
, and M. Saks. 1994. Explaining the past, understanding the present and worrying about the future of scientific evidence. Cardozo Law Review12:1799-1835.
28.
Farrell, M.1994. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Epistemology and legal process. Cardozo Law Review15:2183-2217.
29.
Freckelton, F.1994. Contemporary comment: When plight makes right—The forensic abuse syndrome. Criminal Law Journal18:29-49.
30.
Frye v. United States 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
31.
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.
32.
Galanter, M.1983. Reading the landscape of disputes: What we know and don't know (and think we know) about our contentious and litigious society. UCLA Law Review31:4-71.
33.
Galanter, M.1986. The day after the litigation explosion. Maryland Law Review46:3-39.
34.
Gatowski, S. I.
, S. A. Dobbin, J. T. Richardson, C. Nowlin, and G. P. Ginsburg. 1996. The diffusion of scientific evidence: A comparative analysis of admissibility standards in Australia, Canada, England, and the United States, and their impact on social and behavioural sciences. Expert Evidence4:86-92.
35.
Green, M. D.1992. Expert witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence in toxic substances litigation: The legacy of Agent Orange and Bendectin litigation. Northwestern University Law Review86:643-699.
36.
Gusfield, J. R.
1981. The culture of public problems: Drinking-driving and the symbolic order. London: University of Chicago Press.
37.
Hans, V. P.
, and W. S. Lofquist. 1992. “Jurors” judgments of business liability in tort cases: Implications for the litigation explosion debate. Law & Society Review26:85-115.
38.
Heilbron, J. L.1994. The affair of the Countess Gorlitz. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society138:284-316.
39.
Huber, P. W.
1991a. Galileo's revenge: Junk science in the courtroom. New York: Basic Books.
40.
Huber, P. W.1991b. Medical experts and the ghost of Galileo. Law and Contemporary Problems54:119-169.
41.
Hutchinson, C. T.
, and D. S. Ashby. 1994. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Redefining the bases for admissibility of expert scientific testimony. Cardozo Law Review15:1875-1927.
42.
Imwinkelried, E.1994. The next step after Daubert: Developing a similarly epistemological approach to ensuring the reliability of nonscientific expert testimony. Cardozo Law Review15:2271-2294.
43.
Jasanoff, S.
1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
Jasanoff, S.1992. What judges should know about the sociology of science. Jurimetrics32:345-359.
45.
Jasanoff, S.1993. What judges should know about the sociology of science. Judicature77:77-82.
46.
Jasanoff, S.
1995. Science at the bar: Law, science, and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
Jasanoff, S.1996. Beyond epistemology: Relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science26:393-418.
48.
Jonakait, R.1994. The meaning of Daubert and what that means for forensic science. Cardozo Law Review15:2103-2117.
49.
Klein, M. S.1994. After Daubert: Going forward with lessons from the past. Cardozo Law Review15:2219-2235.
50.
Lasagna, L.
, and S. R. Shulman. 1993. Bendectin and the language of causation. In Phantom risk: Scientific inference and law, edited by K. Foster, D. Bernstein, and P.W. Huber, 101-122. Cambridge: MIT Press.
51.
Loevinger, L.1995. Science as evidence. Jurimetrics Journal35:153-190.
52.
Miller, P. S.
, B. W. Rein, and E. O. Bailey. 1994. Daubert and the need for judicial scientific literacy. Judicature77:254-260.
53.
Mills, J. S.1995. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on remand: The Ninth Circuit loses its way in the “brave new world.”Georgia Law Review29:849-879.
54.
National Academy of Sciences
. 1984. Science and creationism: A view from the National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
55.
Nelkin, D.1994. After Daubert: The relevance and reliability of genetic information. Cardozo Law Review15:2119-2128.
56.
Note, 1995. Confronting the new challenges of scientific evidence. Harvard Law Review108:1481-1605.
57.
O'Connor, S.1995. The Supreme Court's philosophy of science: Will the real Karl Popper please stand up?Jurimetrics Journal35:263-276.
58.
Odgers, S.
, and J. T. Richardson. 1995. Keeping bad science out of the courtroom—Changes in American and Australian expert evidence law. University of New South Wales Law Journal18:108-129.
59.
Priest, G. L.1987. The current insurance crisis and modern tort law. Yale Law Journal96:1521-1590.
60.
Quayle, D.1992. Civil justice reform. American University Law Review41:559-569.
61.
Richardson, J. T.
, G. Ginsburg, S. Gatowski, and S. Dobbin. 1995. The problems of applying Daubert to psychological syndrome evidence. Judicature79:10-16.
62.
Roberts, P.1996. The admissibility of expert evidence: Lessons from America. Expert Evidence4:93-100.
63.
Saks, M. J.1992. Do we really know anything about the behavior of the tort litigation system—And why not?University of Pennsylvania Law Review140:1147-1291.
64.
Sanders, J.1992. The Bendectin litigation: A case study in the life cycle of mass torts. Hastings Law Journal43:301-418.
65.
Sanders, J.1993. From science to evidence: The testimony on causation in the Bendectin cases. Stanford Law Review46:1-86.
66.
Sanders, J.1994. Scientific validity, admissibility, and mass torts afterDaubert. Minnesota Law Review78:1387-1441.
67.
Sarat, A.1985. The litigation explosion, access to justice, and court reform: Examining the critical assumptions. Rutgers Law Review37:319-336.
68.
Schwartz, A.1997. A “dogma of empiricism” revisited: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the need to resurrect the philosophical insight of Frye v. United States. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology10:149-237.
69.
Smith, R.
, and B. Wynne. 1989. Expert evidence: Interpreting science in the law. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
70.
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.
71.
Vidmar, N.
1993. How many words for a Camel? A perspective on judicial evaluation of social science evidence. Paper presented at the conference Filtering and Analyzing Evidence in an Age of Diversity, Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, Judicial Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia.
72.
Williams, C. R.1994. Evidence and the expert witness. Australian Journal of Forensic Science26:3-7.
73.
Wynne, B.
1982. Rationality and ritual: The Windscale inquiry and nuclear decision in Britain. Preston: BSHS.
74.
Yearley, S.1989. Bog standards: Science and conservation at a public inquiry. Social Studies of Science19:421-437.
75.
Youmans, A. I.1987. Research guide to the litigation explosion. Law Library Journal79:707-719.
