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

Representation and re-presentation in litigation science.

Sheila Jasanoff1

  • 1Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138-5801, USA. Sheila_jasanoff@harvard.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

Global Observatory for Genome Editing Summit Statement: Call for a Charter on Emerging Technologies and Human Dignity.

The CRISPR journal·2025
Same author

Introducing Perspectives from the Global Observatory for Genome Editing.

The CRISPR journal·2025
Same author

A Reset for Bioethics: A Statement from the Global Observatory for Genome Editing.

The CRISPR journal·2025
Same author

Ethics Inside the Black Box: Integrating Science and Technology Studies into Engineering and Public Policy Curricula.

Science and engineering ethics·2023
Same author

Knowledge for a just climate.

Climatic change·2021
Same author

Was "science" on the ballot?

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2021
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

Judicial screening of scientific evidence is flawed because it assumes external criteria exist to distinguish good from bad science. This approach ignores litigation dynamics, risking reliance on "junk science."

Area of Science:

  • Legal studies
  • Philosophy of science
  • Science communication

Background:

  • Federal courts use criteria like the Daubert standard to assess scientific evidence reliability.
  • The Ninth Circuit's "litigation science" criterion devalues science produced during legal proceedings.
  • Existing judicial screening methods for scientific evidence are based on flawed premises.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critique the criterion-based approach to judicial screening of scientific evidence.
  • To argue that external criteria for distinguishing good from bad science are illusory.
  • To highlight the failure of judicial screening to account for litigation's influence on knowledge production.

Main Methods:

  • Critical analysis of judicial screening criteria for scientific evidence.
Keywords:
admissibilityevidenceexpert witnessforensic sciencelitigation sciencescience studiesvisualization

Related Experiment Videos

  • Examination of the "litigation science" criterion used by the Ninth Circuit.
  • Review of scholarship on the social construction and validation of scientific facts.

    • Main Results:

    • The criterion-based approach erroneously assumes objective, external standards for scientific validity.
    • Judicial screening overlooks how litigation dynamics (party gaming, judicial framing) shape scientific knowledge.
    • Courts function as sites of knowledge re-representation, not passive arbiters of pre-existing facts.

    Conclusions:

    • The criterion-based approach to judicial screening of scientific evidence is fundamentally flawed.
    • Over-reliance on such criteria risks courts adopting a "junk science" understanding of scientific knowledge.
    • A more nuanced approach is needed that acknowledges the situated and dynamic nature of scientific fact production within legal contexts.