Judging Science―Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts

What is "scientific knowledge" and when is it reliable? These deceptively simplequestions have been the source of endless controversy. In 1993, the Supreme Court handed down alandmark ruling on the use of scientific evidence in federal courts. Federal judges may admit expertscientific evidence only if it merits the label "scientific knowledge." The testimony must bescientifically "reliable" and "valid."This book is organized around the criteria set out in the 1993ruling. Following a general overview, the authors look at issues of fit--whether a plausible theoryrelates specific facts to the larger factual issues in contention; philosophical concepts such asthe falsifiability of scientific claims; scientific error; reliability in science, particularly infields such as epidemiology and toxicology; the meaning of "scientific validity"; peer review andthe problem of boundary setting; and the risks of confusion and prejudice when presenting science toa jury.The book's conclusion attempts to reconcile the law's need for workable rules of evidencewith the views of scientific validity and reliability that emerge from science and otherdisciplines.

Peter W. Huber is a Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and serves as Counsel to the law firm of Mayer, Brown & Platt.