DOCSLIB.ORG

What Is Junk Science?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Is Junk Science? The Litigator’s Guide to Combating Junk Science The Litigator’s Guide to Combating Junk Science The Litigator’s Guide to Combating Junk Science Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 3 What Is Junk Science? ................................................................................................................................ 5 Anti-Junk Science Websites ..................................................................................................................... 7 Anti-Junk Science Books ......................................................................................................................... 11 Resources for Regulatory Guidance ................................................................................................... 13 Resources for Scientific Standards ..................................................................................................... 16 Placebo and Nocebo Effects ................................................................................................................. 20 About Innovative Science Solutions .................................................................................................. 21 © 2013 Innovative Science Solutions 2 The Litigator’s Guide to Combating Junk Science Introduction Science plays a critical role in the courtroom. Access to scientific research and an understanding of scientific principles enable the litigator to build a powerful case. The team’s expert witnesses can effectively communicate to the judge and jury technical concepts that support the central arguments of the case. Five types of legal cases often rely on scientific information: • Personal Injury: Scientific evidence is typically presented in mass torts involving allegations of personal injury from a product, an environmental exposure, or a chemical exposure. In these cases, plaintiffs rely on scientific studies to demonstrate a link between the exposure and the injury. The defense presents scientific research to cast doubt on the purported causal relationship between the exposure and the injury. • Consumer Fraud: To counter the plaintiff’s claim that a product failed to achieve the results promised, the defense argues that its marketing claims are supported by reliable scientific evidence. Plaintiffs will present evidence that questions or counters the defense’s data. • Medical Malpractice: To counter the plaintiff’s claim that a healthcare provider’s error resulted in harm, the defense will present scientific studies to demonstrate the provider adhered to the generally accepted standard-of-care. • Securities and Shareholders Lawsuits: In securities and shareholder lawsuits involving medical devices or pharmaceutical products, the defense presents scientific evidence to demonstrate that the information relayed to shareholders was reasonable and reliable. © 2013 Innovative Science Solutions 3 The Litigator’s Guide to Combating Junk Science • Patent Challenges: Opposing parties in patent infringement cases will most likely agree on the fundamental science. But the plaintiff will present specific scientific evidence to support the claim that the patent does not meet the necessary requirements. The parties involved in any legal dispute will typically engage in a legitimate debate about the validity of the scientific evidence presented. Even the experts often disagree when interpreting scientific data. However, dubious or bias scientific information is occasionally presented in court cases, influencing the outcome. Judges and juries who lack the background and knowledge to properly evaluate the validity of scientific data tend to accept the information placed before them. When a case relies on misinformation, unsubstantiated claims, and misleading data, opposing counsel can successfully counterattack with access to the right resources. In the following pages, we provide you with the tools and resources you need to combat junk science in the courtroom. • What Is Junk Science identifies examples of junk science. • Anti-Junk Science Websites provides access to resources dedicated to exposing junk science. • Anti-Junk Science Books lists publications focused on illuminating the issue of junk science. • Resources for Regulatory Guidance provides access to government resources that will allow you to counter misinformation with scientifically sound principles. • Resources for Scientific Standards provides access to reputable online resources that present generally accepted scientific methods. • Placebo and Nocebo Effects provides the latest research on this medical phenomenon, which is central to many pharmaceutical cases. © 2013 Innovative Science Solutions 4 The Litigator’s Guide to Combating Junk Science What Is Junk Science? Legitimate controversies erupt daily in political arenas, the news media, the courtroom, and the court of public opinion. In these debates, valid evidence usually emerges to support both sides. However, we have observed a number of controversies in which one side relies on faulty data – or junk science – rather than rigorous scientific methodologies. Junk science refers to scientific research that fails to meet the criteria characteristic of a rigorous scientific investigation, such as falsifiable hypotheses, replication, peer- review and publication, general acceptance, neutrality, objectivity, and adherence to the scientific method. Purveyors of junk science typically have an agenda, and research and results are driven by non-scientific motives that are often political, financial or ideological. To illuminate the issue, we provide below examples of controversial claims based on junk science, and links to resources refuting these questionable claims. Controversial Claim #1: Electromagnetic radiation causes adverse health effects. Junkscience.com - EMFs and Cell Phones National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences - Electric and Magnetic Fields Controversial Claim #2: Endocrine disruptors disturb human hormone balances. SafeChemicalPolicy.org - Endocrine Disruptors Sciencebasedmedicine.org - Endocrine disruptors—the one true cause? © 2013 Innovative Science Solutions 5 The Litigator’s Guide to Combating Junk Science Controversial Claim # 3: Hydraulic fracturing leads to adverse health effects for nearby residents. Junkscience.com - Penn pilot study: Group of Bradford Co, Pa. residents concerned about health effects of hydrofracking K&L Gates Law Firm - Junk Science Meets Hydraulic Fracturing: Unfounded Environmental Scare Threatens Energy Development Controversial Claim #4: Multiple chemical sensitivity causes a host of adverse health effects. Junkscience.com - Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Testimony Inadmissible Under Daubert, Court Says Skepdic.com - multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) from Skeptic’s dictionary Controversial Claim #5: Vaccines lead to autism. Junkscience.com - The risk of autism is not increased by ‘too many vaccines too soon’ Nature - A case of junk science, conflict and hype © 2013 Innovative Science Solutions 6 The Litigator’s Guide to Combating Junk Science Anti-Junk Science Websites The following online resources are dedicated to exposing junk science. They offer a wealth of information that counters assertions based on unreliable data. Bad Science Dr. Ben Goldacre, author of the bestseller Bad Science, continues his campaign against junk science in his witty and insightful blog of the same name. In his book and blog, he exposes the tenuous scientific claims of newspapers, doctors, government reports and drug companies. Bjorn Lomborg Bjorn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School, a bestselling author, and a frequent media commentator, challenges mainstream concerns about the environment. In news articles and social media posts, he strives to focus attention on effective solutions to environmental issues. Debunked & Exposed Maintained by JunkScience.com, Debunked & Exposed offers Debunkosaurus™, a Wiki-based tool for researching health scares and scams. Gary Taubes Gary Taubes is a science writer and the author of Nobel Dreams (1987), Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion (1993), and Good Calories, Bad © 2013 Innovative Science Solutions 7 The Litigator’s Guide to Combating Junk Science Calories (2007). He has won the Science in Society Award of the National Association of Science Writers three times and was awarded an MIT Knight Science Journalism Fellowship for 1996-97. Taubes’ books deal with controversies in the field of science. Nobel Dreams takes a critical look at the politics and experimental techniques behind the Nobel Prize-winning work of physicist Carlo Rubbia. Bad Science chronicles the short-lived media frenzy surrounding the Pons-Fleischmann cold fusion experiments of 1989. JunkScience “All the Junk That’s Fit to Debunk.” As its motto indicates, JunkScience.com’s mission is to reveal the facts behind junk science in the media and the courtroom. JunkScience takes on Global Warming theorists, the EPA, the American Heart Association and others. Not Even Wrong William H. Kinney, associate professor in the University at Buffalo Physics Department, named his website after the Wolfgang Pauli quote “It is not even wrong.” The website is described as “A page dedicated to the ample evidence that we need better science education.” Topics include vaccines and autism, EMFs, plastic softeners, silicone breast implants, and more. QuackWatch
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “Junk Science”: the Criminal Cases
    Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons Faculty Publications 1993 “Junk Science”: The Criminal Cases Paul C. Giannelli Case Western University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Evidence Commons, and the Litigation Commons Repository Citation Giannelli, Paul C., "“Junk Science”: The Criminal Cases" (1993). Faculty Publications. 393. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/393 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/93/8401-0105 THE jouRNAL OF CRIMINAL LAw & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 84, No. I Copyright© 1993 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. "JUNK SCIENCE": THE CRIMINAL CASES PAUL C. GIANNELLI* l. INTRODUCTION Currently, the role of expert witnesses in civil trials is under vigorous attack. "Expert testimony is becoming an embarrassment to the law of evidence," notes one commentator. 1 Articles like those entitled "Experts up to here"2 and "The Case Against Expert Wit­ nesses"3 appear in Forbes and Fortune. Terms such as "junk science," "litigation medicine," "fringe science," and "frontier science" are in vogue.4 Physicians complain that "[l]egal cases can now be de­ cided on the type of evidence that the scientific community rejected decades ago."5 A. THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE The expert testimony provisions of the Federal Rules of Evi­ dence are the focal point of criticism.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic Ancestry Testing Among White Nationalists Aaron
    When Genetics Challenges a Racist’s Identity: Genetic Ancestry Testing among White Nationalists Aaron Panofsky and Joan Donovan, UCLA Abstract This paper considers the emergence of new forms of race-making using a qualitative analysis of online discussions of individuals’ genetic ancestry test (GAT) results on the white nationalist website Stormfront. Seeking genetic confirmation of personal identities, white nationalists often confront information they consider evidence of non-white or non- European ancestry. Despite their essentialist views of race, much less than using the information to police individuals’ membership, posters expend considerable energy to repair identities by rejecting or reinterpreting GAT results. Simultaneously, however, Stormfront posters use the particular relationships made visible by GATs to re-imagine the collective boundaries and constitution of white nationalism. Bricoleurs with genetic knowledge, white nationalists use a “racial realist” interpretive framework that departs from canons of genetic science but cannot be dismissed simply as ignorant. Introduction Genetic ancestry tests (GATs) are marketed as a tool for better self-knowledge. Purporting to reveal aspects of identity and relatedness often unavailable in traditional genealogical records, materials promoting GATs advertise the capacity to reveal one’s genetic ties to ethnic groups, ancient populations and historical migrations, and even famous historical figures. But this opportunity to “know thyself” can come with significant risks. Craig Cobb had gained public notoriety and cult status among white supremacists for his efforts to buy up property in Leith, ND, take over the local government, and establish a white supremacist enclave. In 2013, Cobb was invited on The Trisha Show, a daytime talk show, to debate these efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Right and Left, Partisanship Predicts (Asymmetric) Vulnerability to Misinformation
    Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review1 February 2021, Volume 1, Issue 7 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Reprints and permissions: [email protected] DOI: https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-55 Website: misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu Research Article Right and left, partisanship predicts (asymmetric) vulnerability to misinformation We analyze the relationship between partisanship, echo chambers, and vulnerability to online misinformation by studying news sharing behavior on Twitter. While our results confirm prior findings that online misinformation sharing is strongly correlated with right-leaning partisanship, we also uncover a similar, though weaker, trend among left-leaning users. Because of the correlation between a user’s partisanship and their position within a partisan echo chamber, these types of influence are confounded. To disentangle their effects, we performed a regression analysis and found that vulnerability to misinformation is most strongly influenced by partisanship for both left- and right-leaning users. Authors: Dimitar Nikolov (1), Alessandro Flammini (1), Filippo Menczer (1) Affiliations: (1) Observatory on Social Media, Indiana University, USA How to cite: Nikolov, D., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2021). Right and left, partisanship predicts (asymmetric) vulnerability to misinformation. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 1(7). Received: October 12th, 2020. Accepted: December 15th, 2020. Published: February 15th, 2021. Research questions • Is exposure to more
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Medicine As Counter-Conduct: Therapeutic Spaces and Medical Rationality in Contemporary Romania
    STUDIA UBB SOCIOLOGIA, 60 (LX), 2, 2015, pp. 5-19 DOI: 10.1515/subbs-2015-0007 ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE AS COUNTER-CONDUCT: THERAPEUTIC SPACES AND MEDICAL RATIONALITY IN CONTEMPORARY ROMANIA CORINA RUSU1 Abstract. This study analyses the practice of medical pluralism in contemporary Romania, addressing the phenomenon of alternative medicine through the Foucauldian concept of counter-conduct. Employing in-depth interviews with general and alternative practitioners from two towns in Transylvania, and participant observations in spaces where they practice their knowledge, I describe how certain discursive acts reformulate the body and the subject- patient. Alternative therapists construct their practice in direct opposition to several parameters of biomedicine, such as the logic of diagnosis, treatment, and the praxis of patient’s visit to the general practitioner’s office, discussed in the paper. They define their approach as psychosomatic, and set-up the medical space as a confessional space, envisioning a holistic corporeality and the idea of the “inner doctor” in each patient. This conduct would supposedly make the subject “active” and “empowered”, as opposed to the “passive” patient succumbed to the diagnosis of conventional doctors. Keywords: counter-conduct, biomedicine, alternative medicines, patient subject Introduction Postsocialist Romania, especially in the last decade, opened up to a breadth of non-conventional medicines, also named holistic, alternative or complementary medicines. Romania accommodates a wide range of such practices, mainly clustered around big cities; in 2009, 7% of the population resorted to alternative medicines within the last 12 months (Dragan and Madsen, 2011). The possibility of diversity made way for new therapeutic figures on the medical market – naturopaths, homeopaths, osteopaths, Reiki therapists, modern shamans - all of them working next to family practitioners, popular healers and plastic surgeons.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy-353-Syllabus
    Philosophy 353: Introduction to Philosophy of Science Fall, 2014 TuTh 4-5:15 Bartlett 206 Instructor: Phillip Bricker Office: 370 Bartlett Hall e-mail: [email protected] Course website: blogs.umass.edu/bricker/teaching/phil-353-introduction-to-philosophy- of-science Office Hours: Thursday 2-3, and by appointment Course Prerequisites. None. Course Requirements. A take-home midterm exam and a take-home final exam, each worth 30% of the grade. Four two-page writing assignments on the readings, each worth 10%. Class participation can boost your grade up to one step (e.g., from a B to a B+, or an A- to an A). Readings. The only required book is Theory and Reality, by Peter Godfrey-Smith. It should be at the UMass book store. It is available new from AmaZon for $24.44. All other readings will be put on my course website, whose address is above. The readings are password protected and the password is: phiscie. Course Description and Schedule. The exact schedule is not set in advance. For the first 8-10 weeks, we will work through the first 10 chapters of the text, Theory and Reality, complemented by readings from the philosophers being discussed. This is a historically oriented tour of the approaches that philosophers have taken towards science over the past hundred years. It begins with logical positivism and its evolution into a less strict empiricism. It continues with the turn towards the history and the sociology of science taken by Kuhn and Lakatos. It concludes with a brief look at feminist and post- modernist critiques of science (“the science wars”) of the past twenty years.
    [Show full text]
  • Adjustments, Strokes and Errors in Medicine by Dr
    Adjustments, strokes and errors in medicine by Dr. C. Kent Page 1 of 5 Read and respected by more doctors of chiropractic than any other professional publication in the world. A publication of the World Chiropractic Alliance Research on Purpose by Dr. Christopher Kent Adjustments, strokes and errors in medicine In both Canada and the United Stares, reports have appeared in the popular media suggesting that chiropractic "manipulation" of the cervical spine is associated with strokes. Some writers have suggested that such procedures be banned. These allegations require a swift and vigorous response. In his book, "Galileo's Revenge," attorney Peter Huber describes "junk science" as "A hodgepodge of biased data, spurious inference, and logical legerdemain...It is a catalog of every conceivable kind of error: data dredging, wishful thinking, truculent dogmatism, and, now and again, outright fraud." (1) An excellent example of "junk science" is the popular notion that chiropractic adjustments cause strokes. Although individual case reports of adverse events following "manipulation" have been reported in the medical literature for decades, recent exposés in the popular media seem to have led some individuals to accept this premise at face value. Careful examination will reveal that these individuals have fallen prey to a classic case of "junk science." A common error in logic is equating correlation with cause and effect. The fact that a temporal relationship exists between two events does not mean that one caused the other. As Keating (2) explained, "To mistake temporal contiguity of two phenomena for causation is a classic fallacy of reasoning known as 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc,' from the Latin meaning 'after this, therefore caused by this.'" Consider the application of this fallacy in the case of chiropractic adjustments and strokes.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    CURRICULUM VITAE Robert A. Bailey, DC, DABFP, CICE, DABCC, CIRE 14920 Hickory Greens Court Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Telephone 812-890-7121 [email protected] Website: www.drrobertbailey.com Last Updated September of 2015 Dr. Robert A. Bailey EDUCATION Logan College of Chiropractic Chesterfield, Missouri Completed 4 academic yrs with 4,605 hrs of in-class training Graduated 1977 MILITARY SERVICE U.S. Army Medical Corps (91P20) 1969-1972 Honorable Discharge TRAINING AND CERTIFICATIONS American Board of Forensic Professionals (DABFP) Certificate number: 0034 Expiration date: 12/18/2016 1 American Board of Chiropractic Consultants (DABCC) Certificate number: 124 Expiration date: 10/12/2016 American Board of Independent Medical Examiners (ABIME) Certificate number: 07-00162 Certified Impairment Rating Examiner (CIRE) Examination hosted by Brigham & Associates. Certified by the National Association of Disability Evaluating Professionals (NADEP) 2004 Successfully completed training in the use of the 6th Edition of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment entitled, ‘Learning the New Standard’ March 2008. Learning the New Standard: 6th Edition of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, taught by Christopher R. Brigham, MD, Senior Contributing Editor for the Sixth Edition. American Board of Independent Medical Examiners (ABIME) AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th ed. With Review of Principles of Disability Assessment, Chicago, Illinois, taught by Dr. Mohammed Ranavaya. American Board of Independent Medical Examiners (ABIME) Causation, What does the science say? A Workshop. Chicago, Illinois, taught by Dr. Kathryn Mueller. Successfully passed a course in Chiropractic Forensics; sponsored by the National Board of Forensic Chiropractors and Texas College of Chiropractic.
    [Show full text]
  • (DRAFT 29 July 02) for Think: the Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy
    (DRAFT 29 July 02) for Think: the journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy THE SEVEN WARNING SIGNS OF VOODOO SCIENCE Robert L. Park Department of Physics University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20783 USA A best-selling health guru insists that his brand of spiritual healing is firmly grounded in quantum theory; half the population believes Earth is being visited by space aliens who have mastered faster-than-light travel; and educated people are wearing magnets in their shoes to restore their natural energy. Why, in an age of science, does irrationalism appear to be raging out of control? The persistent irony is that science begets pseudoscience. The more science succeeds, the more it attracts imitators who cloak foolish and often fraudulent claims in the language and symbols of science. With spectacular advances in science and medicine being announced almost daily, the public has come to expect scientific "miracles." And of course, there are "miracles" aplenty, or at least scientific wonders that would have seemed like miracles a few short decades ago. Too often, however, those with little exposure to the methods and ideas of modern science are unable to distinguish genuine scientific advances from the claims of misguided zealots or unscrupulous hucksters. This is a particular problem in the courts, which are increasingly confronted with controversies that turn on questions of science. In judging the credibility of testimony, the scientific credentials of "expert" witnesses are of only limited help. A Ph.D. in science is not an inoculation against foolishness or mendacity, and even some Nobel laureates seem to be a bit strange.
    [Show full text]
  • Why It Mattered to Dover That Intelligent Design Isn't Science Richard B
    FIRST AMENDMENT LAW REVIEW Volume 5 | Issue 1 Article 6 9-1-2006 Why It Mattered to Dover That Intelligent Design Isn't Science Richard B. Katskee Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/falr Part of the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Richard B. Katskee, Why It Mattered to Dover That Intelligent Design Isn't Science, 5 First Amend. L. Rev. 112 (2006). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/falr/vol5/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in First Amendment Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHY IT MATTERED TO DOVER THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN ISN'T- SCIENCE RIcHARD B. KATSKEE * INTRODUCTION What if you were a consumer concerned about the wholesomeness of a product you were contemplating buying, and, in the highest profile consumer-fraud case in two decades, a court hearing claims against the product's manufacturer issued a decision without looking at the item being sold or the marketing strategy being used? Would you conclude that the court was adequately enforcing the law to protect the public interest? Or what if you were that manufacturer, and the court held you liable for fraud without even considering your proffered defenses? Would you feel that the court had treated you justly? In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,' the Dover school board and the intelligent-design movement as a whole stood trial on the claim that they were trying to pass off a religious view as though it were a scientific theory, so that they could market it to students in public- school science classrooms.
    [Show full text]
  • High School Core Science
    HIGH SCHOOL CORE SCIENCE Parent Guide Date of Last Curriculum Revision: August 2012 District Mission The South Brunswick School District will prepare students to be lifelong learners, critical thinkers, effective communicators and wise decision makers. This will be accomplished through the use of the New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards (NJCCCS) and/or the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) at all grade levels. The schools will maintain an environment that promotes intellectual challenge, creativity, social and emotional growth and the healthy physical development of each student. ~Adopted 8.22.11 Curriculum Aligned to NJ Core Curriculum Content Standards (NJCCCS) Board Approval of Science Curriculum August 2016 This curriculum is approved for all regular education programs as specified and for adoption or adaptation by all programs including those for Special Education, English Language Learners, At-Risk Students and Gifted and Talented Students in accordance with Board of Education Policy. 1 Science Acknowledgments We are appreciative of the leadership provided by our curriculum specialists and the knowledge, skills, work and effort of the teachers who served on our curriculum writing teams. In many cases, our units are “home-grown.” While aligning with state and/or national standards, they are designed with the needs of the South Brunswick student population in mind. Articulation The Supervisors, Specialists, Curriculum Chairpersons, Technology Staff Developers, Directors and the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and
    [Show full text]
  • Gatekeeping Soothsayers, Quacks and Magicians: Defining Science in the Courtroom—Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts Eileen Gay Jones
    William Mitchell Law Review Volume 25 | Issue 1 Article 22 1999 Gatekeeping Soothsayers, Quacks and Magicians: Defining Science in the Courtroom—Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts Eileen Gay Jones Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation Jones, Eileen Gay (1999) "Gatekeeping Soothsayers, Quacks and Magicians: Defining Science in the Courtroom—Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 25: Iss. 1, Article 22. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol25/iss1/22 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Jones: Gatekeeping Soothsayers, Quacks and Magicians: Defining Science i GATEKEEPING SOOTHSAYERS, QUACKS AND MAGICIANS: DEFINING SCIENCE IN THE COURTROOM -JUDGING SCIENCE: SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND THE FEDERAL COURTSt Eileen GayJonestt "Scientificconclusions are subject to revision. Law, on the other hand, must resolve disputesfinally and quickly. "' I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 315 II. REVIEWING JUDGING SCIENCE .................................................. 319 A. Foster and Huber on Daubert .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Polemic Against Junk Science: Navigating the Oceans That Divide Science and Law with Justice Breyer at the Helm
    Florida International University College of Law eCollections Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2001 Beyond the Polemic Against Junk Science: Navigating the Oceans that Divide Science and Law with Justice Breyer at the Helm Joelle A. Moreno New England School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Judges Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Joelle A. Moreno, Beyond the Polemic Against Junk Science: Navigating the Oceans that Divide Science and Law with Justice Breyer at the Helm , 81 B.U. L. Rev. 1033 (2001). Available at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications/22 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCollections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 81 B.U. L. Rev. 1033 2001 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Oct 1 14:31:19 2014 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0006-8047 BEYOND THE POLEMIC AGAINST JUNK SCIENCE: NAVIGATING THE OCEANS THAT DIVIDE SCIENCE AND LAW WITH JUSTICE BREYER AT THE HELM JOELLE ANNE MORENO* IN TROD UCTIO N .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]