Representing the sociology of scientific knowledge and law

Science Communication

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 307-327

  Edmond, Gary ^a   Mercer, David ^b  

^a ST JOHN S COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032395028     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547098019004003     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Atiyah, P. S. 1987. American tort law in crisis. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 7:279-301.
2. Ayala, F., and B. Black. 1993. Science and the courts. American Scientist 81:230-39.
3. Barnes, B. 1990. Review: Expert evidence. Social Studies of Science 20:757-60.
4. Bernstein, D. 1994. The admissibility of scientific evidence after Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Cardozo Law Review 15:2139-81.
5. Black, B. 1988. A unified theory of scientific evidence. Fordham Law Review 56:595-695.
6. _. 1994. The Supreme Court's view of science: Has Daubert exorcised the certainty demon? Cardozo Law Review 15:2129-37.
7. Black, B., F. Ayala, and C. Saffran-Brinks. 1994. Science and the law in the wake of Daubert: A new search for scientific knowledge. Texas Law Review 72:715-802.
8. Blake, E. 1988. Rumors of crisis: Considering the insurance crisis and tort reform in an information vacuum. Emory Law Journal 37:401-41.
9. Blomquist, B. F. 1991. Science, toxic tort law, and expert evidence: A reaction to Peter Huber. Arkansas Law Review 44:629-53.
10. Chan, E. J. 1995. The "brave new world" of Daubert: True peer review, editorial peer review, editorial peer review and scientific validity. New York University Law Review 70:100-34.
11. Chesebro, K. 1993. Galileo's retort: Peter Huber's junk scholarship. American University Law Review 42:1637-1726.
12. _. 1994. Taking Daubert's "focus" seriously: The methodological/conclusion distinction. Cardozo Law Review 15:1745-53.
13. Chubin, D., and E. Hackett. 1990. Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
14. Collins, H., and T. Pinch. 1993. The Golem: What everyone should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 61 LW 4805, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
16. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 43 F.3d 1315 (1995).
17. Dreyfuss, R. C. 1995. Is science a special case? The admissibility of scientific evidence after Daubert v. Merrell Dow. Texas Law Review 73:1779-1804.
18. Edge, D. 1995. Reinventing the wheel. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Peterson, and Trevor Pinch, 3-23. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Edmond, G., and D. Mercer. 1996a. Manifest destiny: Law and science in America. Metascience 10:40-58.
20. _. 1996b. Recognising Daubert: What judges should know about falsification. Expert Evidence 5:29-42.
21. _. 1997a. Keeping "junk" history, philosophy and sociology of science out of the courtroom: Problems with the reception of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Implications for Australian evidence law. University of New South Wales Law Journal 20:48-100.
22. _. 1997b. Scientific literacy and the jury: Reconsidering jury "competence." Public Understanding of Science 6:329-57.
23. _. 1997c. The secret life of (mass) torts: The social construction of law-science knowledges. University of New South Wales Law Journal 20:666-702.
24. Eisenberg, T., and J. A. Henderson. 1990. The quiet revolution in products liability: An empirical study of legal change. UCLA Law Review 37:479-533.
25. _. 1992. Inside the quiet revolution. UCLA Law Review 39:731-810.
26. Faigman, D. 1995. Mapping the labyrinth of scientific evidence. Hastings Law Journal 46:555-79.
27. Faigman, E. P., and M. Saks. 1994. Explaining the past, understanding the present and worrying about the future of scientific evidence. Cardozo Law Review 12:1799-1835.
28. Farrell, M. 1994. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Epistemology and legal process. Cardozo Law Review 15:2183-2217.
29. Freckelton, F. 1994. Contemporary comment: When plight makes right - The forensic abuse syndrome. Criminal Law Journal 18:29-49.
30. Frye v. United States 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
31. Fuchs, S., and S. Ward. 1994. What is deconstruction, and where and when does it take place? Making facts in science, building cases in law. American Sociological Review 59:481-500.
32. Galanter, M. 1983. Reading the landscape of disputes: What we know and don't know (and think we know) about our contentious and litigious society. UCLA Law Review 31:4-71.
33. _. 1986. The day after the litigation explosion. Maryland Law Review 46:3-39.
34. Gatowski, S. I., S. A. Dobbin, J. T. Richardson, C. Nowlin, and G. P. Ginsburg. 1996. The diffusion of scientific evidence: A comparative analysis of admissibility standards in Australia, Canada, England, and the United States, and their impact on social and behavioural sciences. Expert Evidence 4:86-92.
35. Green, M. D. 1992. Expert witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence in toxic substances litigation: The legacy of Agent Orange and Bendectin litigation. Northwestern University Law Review 86:643-99.
36. Gusfield, J. R. 1981. The culture of public problems: Drinking-driving and the symbolic order. London: University of Chicago Press.
37. Hans, V. P., and W. S. Lofquist. 1992. "Jurors" judgments of business liability in tort cases: Implications for the litigation explosion debate. Law & Society Review 26:85-115.
38. Heilbron, J. L. 1994. The affair of the Countess Gorlitz. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 138:284-316.
39. Huber, P. W. 1991a. Galileo's revenge: Junk science in the courtroom. New York: Basic Books.
40. _. 1991b. Medical experts and the ghost of Galileo. Law and Contemporary Problems 54:119-69.
41. Hutchinson, C. T., and D. S. Ashby. 1994. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Redefining the bases for admissibility of expert scientific testimony. Cardozo Law Review 15:1875-1927.
42. Imwinkelried, E. 1994. The next step after Daubert: Developing a similarly epistemological approach to ensuring the reliability of nonscientific expert testimony. Cardozo Law Review 15:2271-94.
43. Jasanoff, S. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. _. 1992. What judges should know about the sociology of science. Jurimetrics 32:345-59.
45. _. 1993. What judges should know about the sociology of science. Judicature 77:77-82.
46. _. 1995. Science at the bar: Law, science, and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47. _. 1996. Beyond epistemology: Relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science 26:393-418.
48. Jonakait, R. 1994. The meaning of Daubert and what that means for forensic science. Cardozo Law Review 15:2103-17.
49. Klein, M. S. 1994. After Daubert: Going forward with lessons from the past. Cardozo Law Review 15:2219-35.
50. Lasagna, L., and S. R. Shulman. 1993. Bendectin and the language of causation. In Phantom risk: Scientific inference and law, edited by K. Foster, D. Bernstein, and P. W. Huber, 101-22. Cambridge: MIT Press.
51. Loevinger, L. 1995. Science as evidence. Jurimetrics Journal 35:153-90.
52. Miller, P. S., B. W. Rein, and E. O. Bailey. 1994. Daubert and the need for judicial scientific literacy. Judicature 77:254-60.
53. Mills, J. S. 1995. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on remand: The Ninth Circuit loses its way in the "brave new world." Georgia Law Review 29:849-79.
54. National Academy of Sciences. 1984. Science and creationism: A view from the National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
55. Nelkin, D. 1994. After Daubert: The relevance and reliability of genetic information. Cardozo Law Review 15:2119-28.
56. Note, 1995. Confronting the new challenges of scientific evidence. Harvard Law Review 108:1481-1605.
57. O'Connor, S. 1995. The Supreme Court's philosophy of science: Will the real Karl Popper please stand up? Jurimetrics Journal 35:263-76.
58. Odgers, S., and J. T. Richardson. 1995. Keeping bad science out of the courtroom - Changes in American and Australian expert evidence law. University of New South Wales Law Journal 18:108-29.
59. Priest, G. L. 1987. The current insurance crisis and modern tort law. Yale Law Journal 96:1521-90.
60. Quayle, D. 1992. Civil justice reform. American University Law Review 41:559-69.
61. Richardson, J. T., G. Ginsburg, S. Gatowski, and S. Dobbin. 1995. The problems of applying Daubert to psychological syndrome evidence. Judicature 79:10-16.
62. Roberts, P. 1996. The admissibility of expert evidence: Lessons from America. Expert Evidence 4:93-100.
63. Saks, M. J. 1992. Do we really know anything about the behavior of the tort litigation system - And why not? University of Pennsylvania Law Review 140:1147-1291.
64. Sanders, J. 1992. The Bendectin litigation: A case study in the life cycle of mass torts. Hastings Law Journal 43:301-418.
65. _. 1993. From science to evidence: The testimony on causation in the Bendectin cases. Stanford Law Review 46:1-86.
66. _. 1994. Scientific validity, admissibility, and mass torts after Daubert. Minnesota Law Review 78:1387-1441.
67. Sarat, A. 1985. The litigation explosion, access to justice, and court reform: Examining the critical assumptions. Rutgers Law Review 37:319-36.
68. Schwartz, A. 1997. A "dogma of empiricism" revisited: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the need to resurrect the philosophical insight of Frye v. United States. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 10:149-237.
69. Smith, R., and B. Wynne. 1989. Expert evidence: Interpreting science in the law. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
70. Solomon, S., and E. Hackett. 1996. Setting boundaries between science and law: Lessons from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Science, Technology, & Human Values 21: 131-56.
71. Vidmar, N. 1993. How many words for a Camel? A perspective on judicial evaluation of social science evidence. Paper presented at the conference Filtering and Analyzing Evidence in an Age of Diversity, Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, Judicial Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia.
72. Williams, C. R. 1994. Evidence and the expert witness. Australian Journal of Forensic Science 26:3-7.
73. Wynne, B. 1982. Rationality and ritual: The Windscale inquiry and nuclear decision in Britain. Preston: BSHS.
74. Yearley, S. 1989. Bog standards: Science and conservation at a public inquiry. Social Studies of Science 19:421-37.
75. Youmans, A. I. 1987. Research guide to the litigation explosion. Law Library Journal 79:707-19.