I don't want to get off on a rant here, but law, rooted in common law and history, bogged down with bureaucracy and interpretation, has small chance of keeping pace with science and technology. For a mild example, look at the foundations of property law, and how digital property muddies the view--a perfect copy which doesn't 'deprive' the source copyholder of benefit; this problem will only get worse with the evolution of nanotech, where 'reality as program' turns the laws of supply and demand on their head. --MW Thursday April 23 7:32 PM EDT Closer Ties Between Science And The Law NEW YORK (Reuters) -- US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer believes positive steps are being taken to improve the sometimes difficult relationship between science and the law. "In this age of science we must build legal foundations that are sound in science as well as in law," Breyer says. He believes that in doing so, "the law will work better to resolve many of the most important human problems of our time." His address to this year's meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is reprinted in the current issue of the journal Science. Breyer points out that scientists are increasingly being called upon to help decide court cases whose outcomes will have far-reaching social implications. Cases involving assisted suicide, partial-birth abortion, product liability, environmental toxins, polygraph testing, and paternity testing are among a plethora of important legal issues recently debated by courts across the nation. All have relied on an assessment of often conflicting scientific evidence and expert opinion. Breyer believes that the current court system is often ill-prepared to meet these challenges. "Most judges lack the scientific training that might facilitate the evaluation of scientific claims," he says, and "scientific evidence itself may be highly uncertain and controversial." Faced with these problems, the US judiciary "has begun to look for ways to improve the quality of the science on which scientifically-related judicial determinations will rest," Breyer said. He notes that scientific legal briefs -- 30-page documents supplied by partisan or outside experts -- provide an overview of the science involved in particular issues, and are now required reading for judges presiding over more complex types of cases. As well, Breyer says many judges "...increasingly have used pretrial conferences to narrow the scientific issues in dispute," helping to keep proceedings on track and simplify matters for jury members. Independent experts (not tied to either plaintiff or defendant) are also being appointed by the court more frequently. However, Breyer admits that truly neutral experts may be nearly impossible to find in many cases. In an effort to alleviate this situation, the AAAS, the American Bar Association and the Federal Judicial Center, have launched a joint project aimed at drawing up a pre-approved pool of candidates who might serve as court-appointed experts with some degree of neutrality. Finally, Breyer believes education will be a key factor in improving the science of the courtroom. Efforts at informing scientists in the ways of the court and training judges to better understand scientific method, should also go a long way "to help bring science and law closer together," he said. SOURCE: Science (1998;280:837-838)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:08:00 PDT