IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/10.2105-ajph.2004.045732_8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Law's knowledge: Science for justice in legal settings

Author

Listed:
  • Jasanoff, S.

Abstract

Legal developments following Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc indicate a growing need to reevaluate the decision's fundamental assumptions about law, science, and their interactions. I argue that in Daubert and two successor cases, the Supreme Court misconceived both the nature of scientific practice and its links to legal fact-finding. The decisions endorsed a separatist model of law and science, presupposing a sharper boundary between the institutions than exists or should exist. A better approach is to recognize that law and science are both knowledge-generating institutions, but that fact-making serves different functions in these two settings. The important question for the law is not how judges can best do justice to science, but rather how courts can better render justice under conditions of uncertainty and ignorance.

Suggested Citation

  • Jasanoff, S., 2005. "Law's knowledge: Science for justice in legal settings," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(S1), pages 49-58.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2004.045732_8
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.045732
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2004.045732
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2105/AJPH.2004.045732?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tobias Pfrommer & Timo Goeschl & Alexander Proelss & Martin Carrier & Johannes Lenhard & Henrike Martin & Ulrike Niemeier & Hauke Schmidt, 2019. "Establishing causation in climate litigation: admissibility and reliability," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 67-84, January.
    2. Taipale, Jaakko & Hautamäki, Lotta, 2021. "Clinical practice guidelines in courts’ representation of medical evidence and testimony," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2004.045732_8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.