Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Litigation-generated science: why should we care?

Leslie I Boden1, David Ozonoff

  • 1Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02118, USA. lboden@bu.edu

Environmental Health Perspectives
|January 17, 2008
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Work-related Well-Being, Turnover Intention, and Completed Turnover in a Cohort of U.S. Patient Care Workers.

Journal of occupational and environmental medicine·2026
Same author

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Occupational Health.

JAMA health forum·2025
Same author

Occupational Injury and Suicide in Washington State, Adjusting for Pre-Injury Depression.

American journal of industrial medicine·2024
Same author

Opioid-related mortality after occupational injury in Washington State: accounting for preinjury opioid use.

Occupational and environmental medicine·2024
Same author

Who do you ask? Predicting injury rates from survey responses.

Work (Reading, Mass.)·2024
Same author

Predicting COVID-19 Cases in Nursing Homes of California and Ohio: Does the Work Environment Matter?

Journal of occupational and environmental medicine·2024
Same journal

A New Start.

Environmental health perspectives·2026
Same journal

Time-Varying Exposure to Element Mixtures and Children's Cognition at 5 Years of Age: Findings from the New Hampshire Birth Cohort Study.

Environmental health perspectives·2026
Same journal

Effect of Household Air Pollution on the Gut Microbiome and Virome of Adult Women Living in Uganda.

Environmental health perspectives·2026
Same journal

Comparison of Temperature-Mortality Associations across the Middle East Using Different Exposure Estimation Approaches.

Environmental health perspectives·2026
Same journal

Workflow for Statistical Analysis of Environmental Mixtures.

Environmental health perspectives·2026
Same journal

Effects of Extreme Heat Exposure on Heatstroke and Liver Injury in Mice: The Role of PPARα.

Environmental health perspectives·2026
See all related articles

Litigation-generated science, like other conflicted science, requires careful scrutiny. Its problems are not unique but common to much reliable courtroom science, necessitating consistent standards for admissibility.

Area of Science:

  • Legal science
  • Forensic science
  • Scientific evidence

Background:

  • A 1994 Ninth Circuit decision proposed stricter admissibility standards for science produced for litigation.
  • This proposition questions whether litigation-generated science warrants unique treatment compared to other scientific endeavors.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze the proposition that litigation-generated science requires more stringent admissibility standards.
  • To examine litigation-generated science as a specific instance of science involving conflicts of interest.

Main Methods:

  • Conceptual analysis of scientific integrity in legal contexts.
  • Comparison of litigation-generated science with other forms of conflicted or strategically motivated research.
Keywords:
Daubertbiomedical researchconflict of interestlitigationpeer reviewregulatory sciencescience and litigationscientific evidence

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Litigation-generated science shares common issues with other science involving conflicts of interest.
  • The problems associated with science for litigation are not unique but are widespread in relevant and reliable courtroom science.

Conclusions:

  • While conflicts of interest in science warrant consideration, singling out litigation-generated science may not be necessary.
  • The challenges in litigation science are general, applicable to much science used in legal proceedings, suggesting a need for consistent evaluation criteria.