Expert witnessing: explaining and understanding science

Description

What Judges, Scientists, Physicians and Attorneys Ought to Know about Each Other, Are Jurors Smart Enough to Understand Scientific Evidence?, The Fundamental Differences between Science and Law, The End of Splendid Isolation: Tensions between Science and Clinical Practice, Expert Testimony Involving Chemists and Chemistry, The Role of Experts in German Environmental Law, Distinguishing Good Science, Bad Science, and Junk Science, The Five Dimensions of Scientific Testimony, Presenting Sophisticated Scientific Evidence Persuasively: The Role of the Scientific Expert and the Attorney at Trial, Forensic Techniques for Establishing the Origin and Timing of a Contaminant Release, Using Epidemiology to Explain Disease Causation to Judges and Juries, Medical and Scientific Evidence of Causation: Guidelines for Evaluating Medical Opinion Evidence, Explaining Toxic Chemical Risk in the Courtroom Authority, Storytelling, and Science, The Role of Technical Expert Witnesses in Patent Litigation;Communication problems between science and the courts are widely deplored and sometimes exploited by a variety of groups. The U.S. Supreme Court has twice tightened the law of evidence to control the flow of information, but amazingly little has been written to analyze the nature of the problem and reduce the barriers. Expert Witnesses: Explaining and Understanding Science results from the first-hand experience of the contributors-who include scientists, expert witnesses, litigators, and a judge-that the cultural and interdisciplinary communications barriers between science and the law can be greatly reduced to everybody's advantage if the parties understand and respect each other's needs and positions.