About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

69 B.U. L. Rev. 513 (1989)
A Comment on Toward Incentive-Based Procedure: Three Approaches for Regulating Scientific Evidence by E. Donald Elliott

handle is hein.journals/bulr69 and id is 521 raw text is: COMMENT A COMMENT ON TOWARD INCENTIVE-BASED PROCEDURE: THREE APPROACHES FOR REGULATING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE BY E. DONALD ELLIOTT PETER HUBER* The theory of the adversary system, George Bernard Shaw caustically observed, is that if you set two liars to exposing each other, eventually the truth will come out. The theory of science is rather different. The Good Lord is subtle, said Albert Einstein, but he is not devious. These two views capture the essence of the problem that Professor Elliott addresses in his most insightful and useful paper. We start with two vastly different cultures. C.P. Snow, I think, had it wrong: the two cultures of the modern world, forever apart, are not science and the arts; they are the laws of nature and the laws of man. There is in fact great affinity between science and the arts. But the scientific method and the adversary system are polar opposites. For the scientist, being a good and honest witness is everything. For the lawyer, the witness is merely a bothersome necessity-an instrument to be used for other purposes. Scientists depend on the honor system to maintain the integrity of their mission. Lawyers rely on oaths administered in the presence of a religious text. Good scientists assume the best from their colleagues and are surprised, even saddened, when the occasional instance of fraud is uncovered. Good trial lawyers assume the worst and feel savagely Wise when they discover (as they always do) that the other side was even more venal, dishonest, and manipulative than originally expected. No case is ever finally closed in science-it is far better that things not be settled than that they be settled wrong. Yet closing the case is all important in law. As a great Justice once observed, in the law it is sometimes more important that things be settled than that they be settled right. Because of these vast cultural differences, most good scientists view the legal system much as humans view reptiles (or as reptiles no doubt view humans): with about equal parts horrified fascination and profound disgust. Few of the best scientists want much to do with the legal system. They won't say so to your face, but most view trial lawyers as intellectual yahoos. Doctors and engineers may be more forthcoming; not scientists. So when we speak of bringing better science into the courtroom, we are proposing, somehow, to marry two systems that start miles apart. What are * Peter Huber, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, is the author of LIABILITY: THE LEGAL REVOLUTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES (1988).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most