The law-set: The legal-scientific production of medical propriety

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 191-226

  Edmond, Gary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035263710     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/016224390102600204     Document Type: Article

References (118)

1. Abraham, J. 1994. Distributing the benefit of the doubt: Scientists, regulators, and drug safety. Science, Technology, & Human Values 19:493-522.
2. Abraham, J., and J. Sheppard. 1997. Democracy, technocracy, and the secret state of medicines control: Expert and nonexpert perspectives. Science, Technology, & Human Values 22:139-67.
3. Allen, R. 1986. A reconceptualisation of civil trials. Boston University Law Review 66:401-37.
4. -. 1991. The nature of juridical proof. Cardozo Law Review 13:373-422.
5. Atkinson, J. M. 1979. Sequencing and shared attentiveness to court proceedings. In Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, edited by G. Psathas, 257-86. New York: Irvington.
6. Atkinson, J. M., and P. Drew. 1979. Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.
7. Bennett, W. L. 1978. Storytelling in criminal trials: A model of social judgment. Quarterly Journal of Speech 64:1-22.
8. Bernstein, D. 1996. Junk science in the United States and the Commonwealth. Yale Journal of International Law 21:123-82.
9. Bloor, D. 1976/1991. Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
10. Gallon, M. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fisherman of St Brieux Bay. In Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge, edited by J. Law, 196-229. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
11. Cambrosio, A., P. Keating, and M. MacKenzie. 1990. Scientific practice in the courtroom: The construction of sociotechnical identities in a biotechnology patent dispute. Social Problems 37:272-93.
12. Cambrosio, A., C. Limoges, and D. Provonost. 1990. Representing biotechnology: An ethnography of Quebec Science Policy. Social Studies of Science 20:195-227.
13. Campbell, B. 1985. Uncertainty as symbolic action in disputes among experts. Social Studies of Science 15:429-53.
14. Carlen, P. 1976. Magistrates justice. London: Martin Robinson.
15. Casper, J. L. 1863-1865. Handbook for the practice of forensic medicine, based upon personal experience, 4 vols. (Trans. G. W. Balfour). London.
16. Cohen, W. 1996. Sex scandal: The private parts of Victorian fiction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
17. Collins, H. M. 1981. The place of the 'core-set' in modern science: Social contingency with methodological propriety in science. History of Science 19:6-19.
18. -. 1985. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage Ltd.
19. -. 1988. Public experiments and displays of virtuosity: The core-set revisited. Social Studies of Science 18:725-48.
20. -. 1999. Tantalus and the aliens: Publications, audiences and the search for gravitational waves. Social Studies of Science 29:163-98.
21. Collins, H. M., and T. Pinch. 1982. Frames of meaning: The social construction of extraordinary science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
22. Daston, L., and Gallison, P. 1992. The image of objectivity. Representations 40:81-128.
23. Drew, P. 1992. Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a rape trial. In Talk at work, edited by P. Drew and J. Heritage, 470-520. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24. Edmond, G. 1998a. Azaria's accessories: The social (legal scientific) construction of the chamberlains' guilt and innocence. Melbourne University Law Review 22:396-441.
25. -. 1998b. Down by science: Context and commitment in the lay response to incriminating scientific evidence during a murder trial. Public Understanding of Science 7:83-111.
26. -. 1998c. Science in court. Negotiating the meaning of a "scientific" experiment during a murder trial and some limits to legal deconstruction for the public understanding of law and science. Sydney Law Review 20:361-401.
27. -. 2000a. Deflating Daubert: Kumho Tire Co v Carmichael and the inevitability of general acceptance (Frye). University of New South Wales Law Journal 23:38-62.
28. -. 2000b. Judicial representations of scientific evidence. Modern Law Review 63:216-51.
29. -. 2001. "Interpreting strategy, legal procedure and medical evidence in the arraignment and trial of R v Boulton and Park and others (1871)"
30. Edmond, G., and D. Mercer. 1997. Scientific literacy and the jury: Reconsidering jury "competence". Public Understanding of Science 6:329-57.
31. -. 1998a. Representing the sociology of scientific knowledge and law. Science Communication 19:307-27.
32. -. 1998b. Trashing "junk" science. Stanford Technology Law Review. Available: http://stlr. Stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/98_STLR_3
33. -. 1999. Juggling science: From polemic to pastiche. Social Epistemology 13:215-33.
34. -. 2000. Litigation life: Law-science knowledge construction in (Bendectin) mass toxic tort litigation. Social Studies of Science 30:265-316.
35. Fleck, L. 1979. Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
36. Foster, K. R., and P. W. Huber. 1997. Judging science: Scientific knowledge and the federal courts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Foucault, M. 1967. Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the Age of Reason. London: Tavistock.
38. -. 1991. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin.
39. Fuchs, S., and S. Ward. 1994. What is deconstructicn, and where and when does it take place? Making facts in science, building cases in law. American Sociological Review 59:481 -500.
40. Garfinkel, H. 1984. Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
41. Gieryn, T., 1983. Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48:781-95.
42. -. 1998. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43. Gieryn, T., G. M. Bevins, and S. C. Zehr. 1985. Professionalization of American scientists: Public science in the creation/evolution trials. American Sociological Review 50:392-409.
44. Gilbert, N., and M. Mulkay. 1984. Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists' discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
45. Golan, T. 1999. The history of scientific expert testimony in courtroom. Science in Context 12:7-32.
46. Goodrich, P. 1986. Reading the law: A critical introduction to legal method and techniques. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
47. Goodwin, C. 1994. Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96:606-33.
48. Green, J. 1985. Media sensationalism and science: The case of the criminal chromosome. In Expository science: Forms and functions of popularisation, edited by T. Shinn and R Whitley, 139-61. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.
49. Green, M. 1996. Bendectin and birth defects: The challenge of mass toxic substances litigation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
50. Hand, L. 1901. Historical and practical considerations regarding expert testimony. Harvard Law Review 15:40-58.
51. Hans, V. P., and W. S. Lofquist. 1992. Juror's judgments of business liability in tort cases: Implications for the litigation explosion. Law and Society Review 26:85-115.
52. Hensler, D. 1989. Resolving mass toxic torts: Myths and realities. University of Illinois Law Review 1989:89-104.
53. Hensler, D., and M. A. Peterson. 1993. Understanding mass personal injury litigation: A socio-legal analysis. Brooklyn Law Review 59:961-1061.
54. Hilgartner, S. 1990. The dominant view of popularisation: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science 20:519-39.
55. Huber, P. W. 1991. Galileo's revenge: Junkscience in the courtroom. New York: Basic Books.
56. Jackson, B. S. 1988. Law, fact and narrative coherence. Liverpool, UK: Deborah Charles.
57. Jasanoff, S. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58. -. 1992. What judges should know about the sociology of science. Jurimetrics 32:345-59.
59. -. 1995. Science at the bar: Law, science, and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60. -. 1998. The eye of everyman: Witnessing DNA in the Simpson trial. Social Studies of Science 28:713-40.
61. Johnson-McGrath, J. 1995. Speaking for the dead: Forensic pathologists and criminal justice in the United States. Science, Technology, & Human Values 20:438-59.
62. Jones, C.A.G. 1994. Expert witnesses: Science, medicine, and the practice of law. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
63. Kairys, D., ed. 1982. The politics of law: A progressive critique. New York: Pantheon.
64. Kalven, H., and H. Zeisel. 1966. The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
65. Kennedy, D. 1986. Freedom and constraint in adjudication: A critical phenomenology. Journal of Legal Education 36:518-62.
66. King, M., and F. Kaganas. 1998. The risks and dangers of experts in court. In Science in Court, edited by H. Reece, 221-42. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
67. Latour, B. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68. Lynch, M. 1996. Ethnomethodology and the logic of practice. Unpublished manuscript.
69. -. 1998. The discursive production of uncertainty: The OJ Simpson "dream team" and the sociology of knowledge machine. Social Studies of Science 28:829-68.
70. Lynch, M., and D. Bogen. 1996. The spectacle of history: Speech, text, and memory at the Iran-Contra hearings. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
71. Lynch, M., and S. Jasanoff, eds. 1998. Contested identities: Science, law and forensic practice. Social Studies of Science 28:675-868.
72. McBarnet, D. 1983. Conviction: Law, the state and the construction of justice. London: Macmillan.
73. McConville, M., A. Sanders, and R. Leng. 1991. The case for the prosecution: Police suspects and the construction of criminality. London: Routledge.
74. McGarity, T. O. 1991. The internal structure of EPA rulemaking. Law and Contemporary Problems 54:57-111.
75. Michael, M. 1996. Ignoring science: Discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science. In Misunderstanding science, edited by A. Irwin and B. Wynne, 107-25. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
76. Michael, M., and L. Birke. 1994. Enrolling the core-set: The case of the animal experimentation controversy. Social Studies of Science 24:81-95.
77. Neeson, C. R. 1979. Reasonable doubt and permissive inferences: The value of complexity. Harvard Law Review 92:1187-225.
78. -. 1985. The evidence or the event? On judicial proof and the acceptability of verdicts. Harvard Law Review 98:1357-92.
79. Nicholson, D. 1994. Truth, reason and justice: Epistemology and politics in evidence discourse. Modern Law Review 57:726-44.
80. Nobels, R., and D. Schiff. 1995. Miscarriages of justice: A systems approach. Modern Law Review 58:299-320.
81. Note. 1995. Confronting the new challenges of scientific evidence. Harvard Law Review 108:1481-605.
82. Osborne, J. W. 1990. Judicial/technical assessment of novel scientific evidence. University of Illinois Law Review, 497-546.
83. Oteri, J. S, M. G. Weinberg, and M. S. Pinnales. 1982. Cross-examination of chemists in drugs cases. In Science in context: Readings in the sociology of science, edited by B. Barnes and D. Edge, 250-59.
84. Peller, G. 1985. The metaphysics of American law. California Law Review 73:1151-290.
85. Pinch, T. 1981. The sun-set: The presentation of certainty in scientific life. Social Studies of Science 11:131-58.
86. -. 1986. Confronting nature: The sociology of neutrino detection. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.
87. Pollner, M. 1979. Explicative transaction: Making aid managing meaning in traffic court. In Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology edited by G. Psathas, 227-55. New York: Irvington.
88. Potter, J. 1996. Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage Ltd.
89. Quayle, D. 1991. Civil justice reform. American Law Review 41:559-69.
90. Rabin, R. L. 1992. A sociolegal history of the tobacco tort litigation. Stanford Law Review 44:853-78.
91. Rudwick, M. 1985. The great Devonian controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago.
92. Sacks, H. 1972. Notes on police assessment of moral character. In Studies in social interaction, edited by D. Sudnow, 280-93. New York: Free Press.
93. Sanders, J. 1993. From science to evidence: The testimony on causation in the Bendectin cases. Stanford Law Review 46:1-86.
94. Schuck, P. 1986. The role of judges in settling complex cases: The agent orange example. University of Chicago Law Review 53:337-65.
95. -. 1987. Agent orange on trial: Mass toxic disasters in the courts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
96. Shackley, S., and B. Wynne. 1996. Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority. Science, Technology, & Human Values 21:275-302.
97. Shapin, S. 1994. A social history of truth: Civility and science in seventeenth-century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
98. Sinfield, A., 1994. The Wilde century: Effeminacy, Oscar Wilde and the queer movement. London: Cassell.
99. Smith, R. 1981. Trial by medicine: Insanity and responsibility in Victorian trials. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh Press.
100. -. 1988. The trials of forensic science. Science as Culture 4:71-94.
101. Smith, R., and B. Wynne, eds. 1989. Expert evidence: Interpreting science in the law. London: Routledge.
102. 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.
103. Star, S. L. 1985. Scientific work as uncertainty. Social Studies of Science 15:391-427.
104. Tardieu, A. 1857. Etude médico-légale sur les attentants aux mœurs, Paris.
105. Taylor, A. S. 1846. A manual of medical jurisprudence, 2d ed. London.
106. Teubner, G. 1998. Legal irritants: Good faith in British law or how unifying law ends up in new divergences. Modern Law Review 61:11 -32.
107. Tribe, L. 1971. Trial by mathematics. Harvard Law Review 84:1329-93.
108. Twining, W. 1990. Rethinking evidence: Exploratory essays. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
109. Upchurch, C. 2000. Forgetting the unthinkable: Cross-dressers and British society in the case of the Queen vs. Boulton and others. Gender & History 12:127-157.
110. Wagenaar, W. A., P. J. van Koppen, and H.F.M. Crombag. 1993. Anchored narratives: The psychology of criminal evidence. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
111. Watson, G. 1994. A comparison of social constructionist and ethnomethodological descriptions of how a judge distinguished between the erotic and the obscene. Philosophy of the Social Science 24:405-25.
112. Weeks, J. 1991. Inverts, perverts and Mary-Annes: Male prostitution and the regulation of homosexuality in England in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. London: Rivers Oram.
113. White, H. 1987. The content and the form: Narrative discourse and historical representation. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
114. Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical investigations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
115. Wynne, B. 1982. Rationality and ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and nuclear decisions in Britain. Chalfont St Giles: British Society for the History of Science.
116. -. 1989. Establishing the rules of law. In Expert evidence: Interpreting science in the law, edited by R. Smith and B. Wynne, 23-55. London: Routledge.
117. Yearley, S. 1989. Bog standards: Science and conservation at a public inquiry. Social Studies of Science 19:421-38.
118. Yellin, J. 1981. High technology and the courts: Nuclear power and the need for reform. Harvard Law Review 94:489-560.