Journal of Science and Technology Studies (과학기술학연구)

Korean Association of Science and Technology Studies (한국과학기술학회)
권호 표지

The Gatekeeper's Dilemma: The Changing Relationship between Science and Law after the Introduction of the Daubert Standard

수문장의 딜레마: 도버트 기준 도입 이후 과학과 법의 관계 변화

  • 김성은 (KAIST 과학기술정책대학원) ;
  • 박범순 (KAIST 과학기술정책대학원)
  • Received : 2015.06.02
  • Accepted : 2015.06.30
  • Published : 2015.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision on Daubert v. Merrel Dow Chemical, Inc. has changed the ways in which scientific evidence is evaluated for legal purposes. A new set of guidelines, called thereafter the Daubert Standard, that was intended to increase the judge's authority in determining the admissibility of scientific evidence in the court, turns out to have increased the burden of proof on the part of plaintiffs and have also considerably influenced the outcome of policy decisions in the regulatory areas. This paper analyzes the changes made in the relationship between science and law after the introduction of the Daubert Standard, examining the epistemological differences between its proponents and opponents. The judge's dilemma as a gatekeeper, this paper argues, is not simply that of an 'amateur scientist' seeking to learn and practice scientific knowledge per se. Rather, the dilemma ought to be that of an 'legal expert,' faithful to ethos of social justice without succumbing to the practical convenience of the Daubert Standard. This paper also suggests that there is much room for STS scholars to make contributions to the use of science in legal settings by conducting in-depth studies on court cases in the broad social and political context.

1993년 과학적 증거 심리에 대해 새로운 방식을 정립한 도버트 기준은 법정의 판결뿐만 아니라 행정기관의 규제 심의에도 광범위하게 쓰이게 되었고, 국경을 넘어 다른 나라의 법정에도 영향을 주기 시작했다. 이 논문은 도버트 기준의 도입 이후 과학과 법의 관계 사이에 일어난 변화를 알아보고, 이 기준에 대한 옹호론자와 비판론자 사이의 관점의 차이를 분석한 후, 과학기술학에서 법과 과학의 관계에 대해 더 깊게 다룰 수 있는 연구영역을 탐색하는 것을 목적으로 하고 있다. 사회적 정의를 추구하는 법의 정신과 불변의 진리를 찾아가는 과학의 속성 사이에서 합리적 판단을 해야 하는 판사의 고충, 즉 '수문장의 딜레마'룰 문제의 핵심으로 보고, 판사가 도버트 기준의 실용성과 형식적인 공정성에 매몰되지 않아야 한다고 주장한다. 이를 위해 과학기술학은 도버트 기준 확산의 역사적 맥락에 대한 연구와 함께 깊이 있는 판례 연구를 통해 입법과정과 공공정책개발과정에 적극적으로 참여할 것을 제안한다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강창경 (2010), 제조물책임에서 입증책임에 관한 입법논의, 월간소비자정책동향, 제18호, pp. 17-30.
  2. 김일용 (2011), 민사소송법상 과학적 증거의 허용성: 미국연방증거규칙과의 비교법적 관점에서, 강원법학, 제32권 제1호, pp. 259-285.
  3. 김종현 (2011), 제조물 결함에 대한 제조업자의 무과실책임, 法學硏究, 제44권, pp. 59-78.
  4. 김수근 (2013), 직업성 암의 입증책임, 의료정책포럼,제11권 제1호, pp. 83-88.
  5. 김희균 (2012), 사실인정과 증거분석
  6. 문성제 (2014), 가습기살균제로 인한 피해와 국가의 위험관리책임, 소비자문제연구, 제45권 제1호, pp. 67-88.
  7. 박규용 (2012), 의약품과 의료제조물의 결함에 대한 제조사의 책임, 법학연구, 제15권 제2호, pp. 231-260.
  8. 박찬임 (2013), 직업성 암의 산재 인정, 국제노동브리프,제11권 제1호, pp. 1-3.
  9. 복진승.고수윤 (2013), 시멘트먼지로 인한 건강피해 분쟁사건 처리와 사법상 입증책임, 환경법과 정책, 제11권, pp. 57-77.
  10. 심희기 (2011), 과학적 증거방법에 대한 대법원판결의 최근동향, 비교형사법연구,제13권 제2호, pp. 281-302.
  11. 이성규.김재형.김일순 (2012), 담배소송과 다국적 담배회사 내부문건 속 국산담배 성분분석,보건사회연구, 제32권 제3호, pp. 461-484.
  12. 이정봉 (2011), 과학적 증거'의 증거법적 평가, 刑事判例硏究, 제21권, pp. 563-616.
  13. 조재호 (2013), 업무상 질병에서의 인과관계 입증책임, 사회보장법연구, 제2권 제1호, pp. 159-183.
  14. 최예용.임흥규.임신예.백도명 (2012), 가습기살균제 피해사건과 교훈, 한국환경보건학회지, 제38권 제2호, pp.166-172. https://doi.org/10.5668/JEHS.2012.38.2.166
  15. Anderson, W. L., Parsons, B. M., & Rennie, D. (2000), "Daubert's backwash: litigation-generated science". U. Mich. JL Reform Vol. 34, pp. 619-682.
  16. Berger, M. A. (2001), "Upsetting the Balance Between Adverse Interests: The Impact of the Supreme Court's Trilogy on Expert Testimony in Toxic Tort Litigation", Law and Contemporary Problems Vol. 64, pp. 289-326. https://doi.org/10.2307/1192315
  17. Berger, M. A. (2005), "What has a decade of Daubert wrought?", American Journal of Public Health Vol. 95(S1), pp. 59-65. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.044701
  18. Berger, Margaret. (2011), "The Admissibility of Expert Testimony", Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence Vol. 3, pp. 11-36.
  19. Berman, K. R. (2012), "Daubert Turning 20: Junk Science Replaced By Junk Rulings?", ABA Section of Litigation Annual Conference, pp. 18-20.
  20. Calhoun, M. C. (2008), "Scientific evidence in court: Daubert or Frye, 15 years later", Washington Legal Foundation Vol. 23, pp. 1-4.
  21. Carolan, M. S. (2008), "The bright-and blind-spots of science: why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies", Critical Sociology Vol. 34(5), pp. 725-740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920508093365
  22. Cecil, J. S. (2005), "Ten years of judicial gatekeeping under Daubert", American journal of public health Vol. 95(S1), pp. 74-80. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.044776
  23. Dixon, L., & Gill, B. (2002), "Changes in the standards for admitting expert evidence in federal civil cases since the Daubert decision", Psychology, Public Policy, and Law Vol. 8(3), pp. 251-308. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.8.3.251
  24. Faigman, D. L. (2013), "The Daubert revolution and the birth of modernity: Managing scientific evidence in the age of science", UC Davis Law Review Vol. 46(3), pp. 653-721.
  25. Foster, K. R., & Huber, P. W. (1999), Judging science: Scientific knowledge and the federal courts. MIT Press.
  26. Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., & Dahir, V. (2001), "Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world", Law and Human Behavior Vol. 25(5), pp. 433-458. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012899030937
  27. Golanski, A. (2001), "Why legal scholars get Daubert wrong: A contextualist explanation of law's epistemology", Whittier Law Review Vol. 22(3), pp. .
  28. Goodstein, D. (2000), "How science works", US federal judiciary reference manual on evidence Vol 3, pp. 66-72.
  29. Haack, S. (2003), Defending science-within reason: Between scientism and cynicism, Prometheus Books.
  30. Haack, S. (2003), "Trial and error: The Supreme Court's philosophy of science", American Journal of Public Health, Forthcoming.
  31. Haack, S. (2005), "Disentangling Daubert: An Epistemological Study in Theory and Practice", Journal of Philosophy, Science and Law Vol. 5, pp. 167.
  32. Helland, E., & Klick, J. (2009), "Does Anyone Get Stopped at the Gate? An Empirical Assessment of the Daubert Trilogy in the States. An Empirical Assessment of the Daubert Trilogy in the States", U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper.
  33. Jasanoff, S. (1995), Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America, Harvard University Press.
  34. Jasanoff, S. (2002), "Science and the Statistical Victim Modernizing Knowledge in Breast Implant Litigation", Social Studies of Science Vol. 32(1), pp. 37-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312702032001003
  35. Jasanoff, S. (2005), "Law's knowledge: science for justice in legal settings", American journal of public health Vol. 95(S1), pp. 49-58. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.95.1.49
  36. Jasanoff, S. (2006), "Transparency in public science: Purposes, reasons, limits", Law and Contemporary Problems Vol. 69, pp. 21-45.
  37. Jurs, A. W., & DeVito, S. (2013), "The Stricter Standard: An Empirical Assessment of Daubert's Effect on Civil Defendants". Catholic University Law Review Vol. 62, pp. 675-732.
  38. Kim, E. S. (2012), "Technocratic precautionary principle: Korean risk governance of mad cow disease", Journal of Risk Research Vol. 15(9), pp. 1075-1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2012.670131
  39. Krafka, C., Dunn, M. A., Johnson, M. T., Cecil, J. S., & Miletich, D. (2002), "Judge and attorney experiences, practices, and concerns regarding expert testimony in federal civil trials", Psychology, Public Policy, and Law Vol. 8(3), pp. 309-332. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.8.3.309
  40. Lakoff, G. (2005), "A cognitive scientist looks at Daubert", American journal of public health Vol. 95(S1), pp. 114-120. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.044552
  41. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard university press.
  42. Leiter, B. (1997), "Epistemology of Admissibility: Why Even Good Philosophy of Science Would Not Make for Good Philosophy of Evidence", The. BYU L. Rev. Vol. pp. 803.
  43. Lin, A. C. (2004), "Beyond tort: compensating victims of environmental toxic injury", S. Cal. L. Rev. Vol. 78, pp. 1439-1528.
  44. McGarity, T. O. (2003), "On the Prospect of "Daubertizing" Judicial Review of Risk Assessment", Law and Contemporary Problems Vol. 66, pp. 155-225.
  45. Melnick, R. L. (2005), "A Daubert motion: a legal strategy to exclude essential scientific evidence in toxic tort litigation", American journal of public health Vol. 95(S1), pp. 30-34. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.046250
  46. Michaels, D. (2005), "Scientific evidence and public policy". American journal of public health Vol. 95(S1), pp. 5-7. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.065599
  47. Michaels, D., & Monforton, C. A. (2005), "Manufacturing uncertainty: contested science and the protection of the public's health and environment", American journal of public health Vol. 95(S1), pp. 39-48. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.043059
  48. Moyer, T. J., & Anway, S. P. (2007), "Biotechnology and the bar: a response to the growing divide between science and the legal environment", Berkeley Tech. LJ Vol. 22, pp. 671.
  49. Mueller, C. B. (2002), "Daubert asks the right questions: now appellate courts should help find the right answers". Seton Hall. L. Rev. Vol. 33, pp. 987-1023.
  50. National Research Council. (2000), Reference manual on scientific evidence, Federal Judicial Center.
  51. Ozonoff, D. (2005), "Epistemology in the Courtroom: A Little 'Knowledge' is a Dangerous Thing", American journal of public health Vol. 95(S1), pp. 13-15. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.039354
  52. Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy. Daubert: The Most Influential Supreme Court Ruling You've Never Heard Of. June 2003, Available at: www.defendingscience.org, Accessed March 18, 2015
  53. Ramsey, S. H., & Kelly, R. F. (2004), "Social science knowledge in family law cases: Judicial gate-keeping in the Daubert era", University of Miami Law Review Vol. 59(1), pp. 1-81.
  54. Saks, M. J., & Faigman, D. L. (2005), "Expert evidence after Daubert", Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. Vol. 1, pp. 105-130. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.1.041604.115907
  55. Saxe, L., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1999), "Admissibility of polygraph tests: The application of scientific standards post-Daubert", Psychology, Public Policy, and Law Vol. 5(1), pp. 203-223. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.5.1.203
  56. Schauer, F. (2009). "Can bad science be good evidence: Lie detection, neuroscience, and the mistaken conflation of legal and scientific norms". Cornell Law Review Forthcoming.
  57. Welch, C. H. (2005), "Flexible standards, deferential review: Daubert's legacy of confusion", Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y Vol. 29, pp. 1085-1105.