Role of Scientific in Public Policy nalysis科學方法在公共政策分析的作用

1、role of scientific method in public policy analysis the admissibility of scientific evidence & expert witnesses varying roles of expertiselegislationregulationlitigation some rules of evidenceuburden of proof & going forwardurelevance (to proposition)umaterial (to issue at trial) uhearsay ex

2、clusion & exceptions business records, admissions, excited/dying utterances, learned treatises ubest evidenceufoundation: chain of custody uother issues: criminal vs. civil, demonstrative, judicial notice, impeachment, confrontation/cross-exam & impeachment, privelege frye v. u.s. : 1923 2nd

3、 degree murder defense offered expert to validate polygraph (blood pressure-type) to exonerate defendant : what constitutes acceptable scientific methodology to support expert testimony?: methodology underlying experts evidence must be sufficiently established to gain general acceptance in the parti

4、cular fieldfrye v. u.s.: 1.id witnesses expertise in particular field of science (education, experience, contribution)2.determine whether experts methods, theories & conclusions satisfy general acceptance standardfryes implicationsuexperts & scientific evidence excluded unless expert qualifi

5、ed & testimony satisfies general acceptance standard uconsensus of scientific community required from peer review, pubs, criticism, replication & reliability unovel theories generally inadmissibleujudges relieved of deep analysisustill valid standard in dozen states +/- & continuing role

6、 in 90s trilogy daubert v. merrell dow pharma: admissibility of 8 experts re-analysis of epidemiological statistics as well as animal & toxicological studies linking bendectin to birth defects : are un-published expert analyses admissible to show scientific causation? : reversed & remanded :

7、 frye rejected as sole admissibility standarddaubert v. merrell dow pharma: judges must serve as ad hoc admissibility reliability gatekeepersuis/can the science (be) tested?usubjected to peer review & publication uwhat is known or potential error rate uwhat is (in relevant scientific community?:

8、 ge electrician claimed lung cancer resulted from jobsite pcb exposure: is there ? : experts conclusions & basis for judgment must flow rationally from purported methodology : experts insistence of causation must be demonstrated with full explication of logic, premises, studies, links shown in s

9、tudies: expert report susceptible to support, explanation & defense : kumho blewout on ford mini-van causing overturn, death, injuries : tire failure analysis sufficiently scientific : trial judge excluded tire expert testimony: applies to all experts (technical, specialized knowledge) not just

10、“scientists;” increases judges scrutiny of experts & methodologies; applies more flexibly not checklist; appeal of trial judge allowance tested by “abuse of discretion” not “de novo” stdujury, not judge, must evaluate conflicting expert & scientific evidence ujudge is gatekeeper on rigor, cr

11、oss-exam, judge instr. & bofp also key uformal hearings not always necessary too difficult for judges to distinguish scientific from other technical disciplines some key emerging expertisesustatistics, multiple-regressionusurvey researchuestimation of economic damagesuepidemiologyutoxicologyueng

12、ineering practiceudnaumedical diagnosis & treatment uenvironmental & workplace exposureuemployment issues ( least) three challengesudissemination of tort databases ventilates experts views uexpertise assumes varying roles in law & regulation ureform of tort/product liability/regulation c

13、ould undercut many key #1: dissemination unational tort data project nas/nrc funded, field & empirical methods database for defensive use by ags, dots traditionally rare & reputational: only secret files from insurance & class action major push to profile experts increasingly well-organi

14、zed, exhaustive ulargely intended for risk mgt feedback ugrave fears that plaintiffs bar might access disseminationuscrutiny of prior testimony arms x-exam to effectively depose, disparageuincreases stakes of 1st testimonyuevery negative x-exam impacts future feesueventually ids potentially adverse

15、experts#2: varying roles of expertiselegislationregulationlitigation #3: reform could undercut need for expertisesucontinuing drive towards reform of tort, product liability & regulatory programs likely to reduce needs for well-paid experts (also: plaintiffs bar, defense bar, judges, catastrophi

16、c insurance coverage) u80s tort crisis is an instructive history tort law is a pendulum u19th century: many limiting principles prevented liability fellow servant, proximate cause, privity more 20th century expansion urecognize scientific causal links to injuryunew forms of injury economic damages non-economic damages economists forcing a merger?unew theories of injury valuation upublic opinion expanding acceptability focci of tort reformsuplaintiffu