Browse > Article

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

Kim, Sungeun (KAIST 과학기술정책대학원)
Park, Buhm Soon (KAIST 과학기술정책대학원)
Publication Information
Journal of Science and Technology Studies / v.15, no.1, 2015 , pp. 215-244 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
Daubert Standard; Gatekeepers's dilemma; Scientific evidence; Constructivism; STS;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
17 Berger, M. A. (2005), "What has a decade of Daubert wrought?", American Journal of Public Health Vol. 95(S1), pp. 59-65.   DOI
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.   DOI
22 Cecil, J. S. (2005), "Ten years of judicial gatekeeping under Daubert", American journal of public health Vol. 95(S1), pp. 74-80.   DOI
23 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.   DOI
24 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.   DOI
25 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.
26 Foster, K. R., & Huber, P. W. (1999), Judging science: Scientific knowledge and the federal courts. MIT Press.
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. (2006), "Transparency in public science: Purposes, reasons, limits", Law and Contemporary Problems Vol. 69, pp. 21-45.
34 Jasanoff, S. (1995), Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America, Harvard University Press.
35 Jasanoff, S. (2002), "Science and the Statistical Victim Modernizing Knowledge in Breast Implant Litigation", Social Studies of Science Vol. 32(1), pp. 37-69.   DOI
36 Jasanoff, S. (2005), "Law's knowledge: science for justice in legal settings", American journal of public health Vol. 95(S1), pp. 49-58.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
40 Lakoff, G. (2005), "A cognitive scientist looks at Daubert", American journal of public health Vol. 95(S1), pp. 114-120.   DOI
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 Michaels, D. (2005), "Scientific evidence and public policy". American journal of public health Vol. 95(S1), pp. 5-7.   DOI
44 Lin, A. C. (2004), "Beyond tort: compensating victims of environmental toxic injury", S. Cal. L. Rev. Vol. 78, pp. 1439-1528.
45 McGarity, T. O. (2003), "On the Prospect of "Daubertizing" Judicial Review of Risk Assessment", Law and Contemporary Problems Vol. 66, pp. 155-225.
46 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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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 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.
54 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.
55 Saks, M. J., & Faigman, D. L. (2005), "Expert evidence after Daubert", Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. Vol. 1, pp. 105-130.   DOI
56 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.   DOI
57 Welch, C. H. (2005), "Flexible standards, deferential review: Daubert's legacy of confusion", Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y Vol. 29, pp. 1085-1105.