NCJ Number
133658
Journal
Judicature Volume: 60 Issue: 8 Dated: (March 1977) Pages: 364-371
Date Published
1977
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This article describes how the proposed science court would operate and how its results might be used. Criticisms of the proposal are summarized, and the future for the proposal is considered.
Abstract
The science court proposal arose out of the recognition that legal and political policymakers do not have the expertise to make responsible policy decisions that involve contested scientific and technological issues. The proposed science court would not be a legal entity, but would rather be a process in which an issue would be selected from among those currently requiring governmental decision. Case managers (adversaries) would be selected, one for each side in the scientific debate. "Judges" (at least three) would be picked from among capable scientists who have no connection with the issue. A chief "judge," assisted by legal counsel, would ensure that the procedural rules are followed. Case managers would submit statements of scientific facts, and the "judges" would ensure the absence of value preferences in the statements. Challenged statements would be subjected to an "adversarial procedure" to be conducted in public. The court would publish its results in the form of statements of facts accepted by both case managers, "judges'" opinions on challenged facts, determination that insufficient scientific knowledge exists, and suggestions for research. Opponents of the court argue that it is unworkable and even if made to work would impede science and the political policymaking process. The future of the proposal is uncertain, but the problem which has given rise to the proposal will remain with us. 10 footnotes