<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Biased against science.
Review: This is not a law text nor a history of science text but a sociology text. Her language shows a bias against scientific analysis, and in favor of sociologists (her profession): peer review is said to give an "impartial facade"; scientific experts are said to have a "technocratic bias." Two other scholars are said to have "complete disregard for findings in contemporary... sociology." Science in general is said to have too high a reputation for credibility: "science generally functions in an atmosphere of credulousness..."The implication is that courts should allow in all opposing scientific claims, since "science" has no claims to "truth" greater than any other profession. Only recommended for its survey of cases and judicial/regulatory opinions and trends over the last several decades.
Rating: 
Summary: Undoing Junk Science
Review: This really excellent book should be required reading for every lawyer who expects to handle expert evidence. Sheila Jasanoff's scholarly and reflective analysis will tell you far more about the law's construction of science than any of Peter Huber's musings (or, if you will, rantings) on the subject. Readers will find Jasanoff's critique of the leading cases of Frye v United States and Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc particularly helpful in understanding the law's constuction of expertise. Jasanoff does not descend to the dust of the arena as Huber does but that does not mean that she avoids trenchant criticism. Her views are nicely understated. For example, she notes that the majority opinion in Daubert was drafted by Justice Blackmun, "regarded at that time as the court's leading authority on science". She has the good taste not to remark that Blackmun was a mathematician and that most of his expertise in science was founded on little more than that he came from a family of physicians. This background also gave rise to the pseudo-medical privacy analysis (rather than an equal protection one) employed in Roe v Wade and has been the cause of many of that case's subsequent woes. Her evaluation of the worth of Daubert can be seen in her phrase "Daubert's fine disregard for a philosophically coherent decision rule on admissibility may exemplify the common law's genius for muddling through..." Readers who have enjoyed Jonathan Harr's A Civil Action will find much of interest in her chapter entitled "Toxic Torts and the Politics of Causation". Her treatment of genetic patents and of brushes between the law and genetic engineering is illuminating and topical. In summary, this book is a very satisfying and readable treatment of a topic that most lawyers and judges find indigestible. Highly recommended.
<< 1 >>
| 
