Marcia Angell, "Science in the Courtroom"

Questions for Making Connections Within the Reading:

1. In order to get a handle on Angell's argument, it's important to understand what a product liability case is and how such cases are handled by the courts. What did the prosecutor have to show in the case against Dow Corning? What is the difference between a judgment based on "a preponderance of the evidence" and a judgment that is "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

2. Angell makes her argument about the role that scientific evidence should play in the courtroom by working through the litigation of the product liability cases against Dow Corning. What are the major events in the Stern case? In the Hopkins case? What is the connection between these cases? Who are the major figures in each case? And what conclusions does Angell want us to reach after having read about these cases?

3. Following the twists and turns in how the courts handle scientific evidence is no easy task. Indeed, Angell herself concedes this point at the end of "Science in the Courtroom," when she observes, "If you are having trouble following all this, it is not your fault, or even mine." And yet, being able to see the difference between the Frye decision and the Daubert decision is crucial if one is to understand Angell's conclusion that the "Daubert decision was a brave step toward remedying the situation, but it was not enough." What is the Frye decision? The Daubert decision? And what role did these decisions play in the litigation of the Stern case and the Hopkins case?

Questions for Writing:

1. As Angell sees it, both the 1897 Supreme Court decision on expert testimony and the Frye decision "avoided coming to grips with the substantive issue of how to define good scientific evidence that would qualify for admissibility in court." What is Angell's standard for "good scientific evidence"? What kind of evidence does she believe should count in product liability cases? Who should decide what counts as evidence in the courtroom?

2. "The question of causation is, after all, a scientific one." Angell makes this observation as if it were obvious and yet, on further inspection, it's clear that not everyone would agree with it. What does it mean to say that the question of causation is a scientific matter? And, if everyone could be made to agree with this statement, how would the court system have to change?

Questions for Making Connections Between Readings:

1. In "False Science, False Promises," Jasper Becker details what happened when the political agenda in Mao's China was allowed to shape the scientific research carried out in that country. Marcia Angell is similarly concerned with the relationship between the scientific community and the government's legislative and judicial bodies. What should the relationship between science and politics be? Is it possible for scientists to be completely objective? Is this an ideal, a myth, a reality, or something else altogether?

2. In "Science in the Courtroom," Marcia Angell has few kind words to say about scientists who are paid to testify in court. Michael Pollan, in "Playing God in the Garden," subjects statements made by the scientists who work for Monsanto to a similar level of scrutiny. What happens when science moves into the boardroom? Are the problems that arise different from those that arise when science moves into the courtroom?

More Angell assignments...