In your opinion, do legal proceedings and court decisions effectively utilize best available science?

Answer Explanations

• 50/50

  user-669412
  This depends of the quality of the legal representation on both sides.
• Seldomly

  user-830315
  Unfortunately, ai least in my country, there is not really a high control on whom is colled to be the expert on scientific matters. 
• Seldomly

  user-315337
  Seldom do the courts take into account the best science or the most scientific arguments. 
• 50/50

  user-421351
   Many courts have been politicized.  Some judges use their moral beliefs in preference over the science.  Due to the expert witness process, the best science may not be presented since the experts, though supposedly independent, may choose to present biased information, due to financial or moral influences 
• 50/50

  user-265910
  The court room decision are made without interaction with science experts for deep understanding of scientific background of modern day issue. 
• Never/Almost Never

  user-71434
  The courts use the law or constitution and not science
• 50/50

  user-574398
  While experts may be used in legal proceedings, if a jury or judge does not understand science/math/statistics then the outcome is not necessarily based on the best science.  
• Seldomly

  user-919082
  There are often large disparities between the quality of science used to influence and reach decisions in litigation, and conflicting expert testimonies on science matters are generally confusing to non-technical juries resulting in emotion-based decision-making vs that based on an actual assessment of what is the best science.   
  Further contributing to confusion, judges generally defer to allowing a wide range of science opinion in the courtroom.
• Seldomly

  user-562202
  This is so because in most cases courts may be in a hurry to conclude cases and one party may not have the resources to utilise all options including all scientific information available or obtainable. 
• 50/50

  user-925409
  Based upon my experience as a consultant and expert witness on issues pertaining to health effects of environmental exposures (mostly endocrine related) court decisions at times do not take into consideration all of the scientific information available.
• Frequently

  user-523578
  If competent consultants are engaged, the evidence should be understandable by the judge and the jury.
• Seldomly

  user-404499
  There is a fundamental difference between the legal and the scientific definitions of causality. The level of evidence required by court to declare relationships is minimal and the term probability (especially the attempt to estimate the proportion contribution of different risk factors) is used superficially and in practice, wrongly.
• Frequently

  user-248213
  Sometimes the scientific evidence is ignored.
• Frequently

  user-900077
  There are cases where the data is not sufficient.
• 50/50

  user-475346
  I think there is often a temptation to highlight the science that is most favorable to one’s legal position, instead of critically evaluating the whole body of evidence on a certain topic.
• 50/50

  user-471505
  Not enough. However, I think that science is used to a relatively greater extent in the criminal field.
• 50/50

  user-156266
  There is cherry picking of what science is used. 
• Seldomly

  user-776568
  Especially when it comes to genetic analysis, there is a lack of competence relating to probabilities in both lawyers and judges, with potential serious prejudice to the outcome of the trial
• Always/nearly always

  user-585260
  This is based on my experience as an expert witness in two legal proceedings.  I was invited to produce a report and undergo deposition.  I'm a behavioral epidemiologist and am familiar with building causal arguments and understanding the strengths/weaknesses/bias of epidemiological study designs.  My literature review and interpretation were key pieces of evidence that led to several verdicts.  The opposing lawyers presented medical expert opinions which are valid, but in my experience medical opinions do not stand in comparison to a careful epidemiologic causal review of evidence. 
  
  To answer the question - I have participated in and have seen the best available scientific evidence win court proceedings.  I have also witnessed methodologically sloppy opinions that are not persuasive.  
• Frequently

  user-826281
  There were two talks at the Society of Toxicology this year from speakers who frequently communicate research in criminal or civil trials.  I believe that in most cases, experts utilize the best available science.
• Seldomly

  user-444118
  Often, a clearly problematic issue that has a scientific basis will be settled in court due to a legal loop hole where the entity filing the suit is determined not to have standing on the issue. The case will be thrown out but the underlying scientifically-based issue remains.
• 50/50

  user-550058
  In many scenarios it is due to lack of scientific facility.
• 50/50

  user-208008
  Depends on the case. The current U.S. Supreme Court case on mifepristone is being argued by religious zealots posing as physicians, giving a bad name to the entire profession. 
• 50/50

  user-200863
  My personal experience is that whenever I submit my written expert testimony telling a convincing story backed by the science that is simple enough for the jurors to understand, attorney of the opposite party try their best to throw my testimony using lame arguments, like I don't have enough expert witness experience, etc. They try to do the same to my depositions, very frustrating. When they cannot dispute the scientific facts, they try to throw the whole report and/or deposition.
• Frequently

  user-532952
  I am an expert witness in the high court in Bloemfontein and they use me as I am an accredited scientist in a tertiary education; with a PhD with a high h rating  as well as having experience with lecturing jurisprudence for veterinary students in regard to  animal welfare. 
• Seldomly

  user-24296
  I don't know that they use science, but they do use expert witnesses who can be skillful in the use of evidence to support a particular viewpoint without necessarily using the "best evidence" by view of the quality of the evidence itself. 
• 50/50

  user-860974
  The current information is not always available.
• Always/nearly always

  user-109201
  Scientific evidence-based judgment would be utilized whenever there is uncertainty in making decisions. 
• 50/50

  user-557043
  • The newest and state of the art science is not often used and it takes a judges decision to allow it for the first time setting a precedent for future use.
  • Statistics are poorly understood by most juries and often manipulated by attorneys.
• Seldomly

  user-740332
  Access to scientific literature may be difficult or ignored by the non-scientist third parts.
• 50/50

  user-879267
  An example is the carcinogenicity claims aboout glyphosate, the IARC review and the CA Prop 65 warning requirements.  Sometimes, regulators also ignore relevant data in the ecological and endangered species act evaluations.  There are examples for many active ingredients.
• Seldomly

  user-377267
  A typical example is the court decisions on the cancer risk related to the use of glyphosate-containing herbicides. Scientific evidnce showing that the active compound is not carciongenic is just ignored.
• Seldomly

  user-695678
  Depends on the science - the process of science is fraught with missteps and self-correction. So, the veneer of "scientific certainty" can be mishandled by either side.  
• Seldomly

  user-757617
  Politics often obscure the facts
• Never/Almost Never

  user-844606
  One side can always find shoddy science to make a point. 
• Seldomly

  user-643355
  The best available science is not always the best science (publication bias, vested interests)
  Courts do not tend to have the expertise to understand e.g., statistical arguments about variability
  The legal process is adverserial, not proceeding by doubt.
• 50/50

  user-293647
  I think it depends on the chemical and the court.  The atrazine and talc cases don't seem to rely on the best science.
• Frequently

  user-202279
  It depends very much on the case, setting, jury, and judge and lawyers involved.
• Seldomly

  user-692508
    No,they seem to often use junk science, and/or misrepresent statistics.
• Seldomly

  user-798488
  In most of the time sicentific evidences used for deceion making in developed countries. However, developing coutries not used because the evidences generated from scientific investigation were limited. 
• 50/50

  user-132252
  It will depend first of the proofs that will be allowed in court, and then would be the type of science that can be understandable for the jury.
• 50/50

  user-774962
  Often there is no one on either side, or on the bench, who has the background and knowledge to recognize krappy science or mis-interpretation of valid research or cherry-picking of data by an "expert".
• 50/50

  user-173340
  Too much lobbing in many cases, in many cases the judges do not understand the details of importance of certain proofs which support accepting or declining the final decision. In many cases also scientists have different attitude to a particular decision, most of them because they have doubts to some proofs, but some of them also because of lobbing, sometimes with unfair background.
• Seldomly

  user-698496
  Lay jury rarely have sufficient understanding of science and the statistical unalysis necessary to understand the conclusion. Thus defence and prosecution cherry pick "experts" to support their point of view without regard to the quality of science.
• Seldomly

  user-304684
  Court too influenced by politics 
• Seldomly

  user-13079

  Forensic doctors usually use outdated books and not current evidence

  
  
• Seldomly

  user-174346
  As an engineer/scientist for 44 years, I routinely see scientists not using the best available science. How could you expect lawyers and judges to then?
• 50/50

  user-234128
  Questions are asked by the attorneys, not by expert witnesses. Cases are determined on the basis of narratives (accounts, theories), which scientific evidence is mobilized to support or undermine.
  It is primarily jousting between lawyers. Science is not a primary consideration or an end in itself. Effectiveness is determined mostly by legal factors (e.g., lawyer's skill and reputation). 
• Seldomly

  user-935064
  Unfortunately, legal proceedings and court decisions rely on persuasiveness of arguments (rhetoric being more important than fact), precident and construction of the controlling legislation.  Science may have provided factual bases at the time a law, regulation, or policy was formulated, but the legal system tends to use that as the touchstone and disregards more relevant factual information.
• Never/Almost Never

  user-242774
  They seem to rely on perception and, like most media, etc. focus only on hazard.  They seem to never look at the known/potential health risk (hazard x exposure) - that should be what is looked at/evaluated/reported.
• 50/50

  tox-expert
  In about half the cases I've worked on, juries and/or judges don't understand the science.  This might be because it wasn't explained adequately or they just didn't have the educational background to understand more complex ideas.  What is more like to sway the jury or judge is how sure an expert seems about their opinion and how the expert "connects" with the triers of fact.  The saying "often wrong, but never in doubt" comes to mind...
• Seldomly

  user-682220
  The court selected experts generally don't have a background in Omics technology. They are behind.
• Seldomly

  user-144735
  I find that, with respect to depositions and trials,  plaintiff expert often rely on distortions, biased scientific analysis and, less frequently, od hominem attacks on the opposing side's experts.  It's not as problematic with respect to judicial decisions.  Still, I remain mystified by how frequently judges allow huge awards in glyphosate cancer cases.
• Seldomly

  user-368705
  Especially in a developing countries, the decision are dominated by political will and affiliations. Also influenced by political powers.
• Seldomly

  user-180243
  This refers to my experience in Italy: the Judges usually nominate their own consultant(s) who usually interact with the plaintiff's, prosecutor's and defendant's consultant. The nomination is frequently not based on an objective evaluation the CV  but on personal knowledge or "political" affinity. 
  In addition, media misunderstanding on science is also carried into Court and, not rarely, plays a major role
• 50/50

  user-914093
  not every part of Africa has developed to that level and so it depends
• 50/50

  user-843923
  In my field (psychology), misunderstandings of scientific literature are frequent, considering the multiple theoretical perspectives characterising the discipline. 
• Seldomly

  user-970267
  They normally don't have all the scientific evidence available.
• 50/50

  user-767602
  Real clinical life differs from positions stated by counselors of the court, since frequently they are not practitioners of the discipline involved in the judgement.
• 50/50

  user-657550
  Public functionaries are contaminated by political ideologies.
• 50/50

  user-957551
  The myriad Roundup herbicide product lawsuits is a good example of ignoring published science and relying on a flawed interpretation by IARC that labeled glyphosate active ingredient a probable human carcinogen, solely based on high dose injections into animals (the agency even admitted the human epidemiological evidence was very weak).  My understanding is the court was not open to alternative opinions plus the case rested on purloined Monsanto emails (some lawyer forgot to tell the principals don't write emails because they are all discoverable in court proceedings).  Thus, based on the Roundup lawsuits with its bevy of ambulance chasing lawyers, I would say that court proceedings can go off the rail and not allow the best available scientific opinions or conclusions.  However, I rated the issue 50/50 because there are cases where scientific information seems to be the major factor in the lawsuit outcomes.
• Seldomly

  user-813332
  The legal situation is us versus them, so the science of probably somewhere in between, the usual situation, is not an option if trying to win a case. Therefore, extreme "expert" views are the norm in legal situations unless the cross-examiner can pick out the flaws in the arguments presented - a difficult job for a lawyer.
• Seldomly

  user-38009
  The most updated state of art needs an aknowledge level that is hard to reach out "on time" out of the science rooms. it is difficult to translate the multilevel and multidiscipline approach to legal proceedings and be clear enough to be understood and used in court decision
• Frequently

  user-316370
  Generally, there is a goodwill to utilize science results, but 
   a) best science is not always leading directly to the unambiguous conclusions
  
  

  b) conclusions should be communicated by the way that non-expert in the respective scientific discipline (e.g. judge) will understand it clearly
  
  

  c) sometimes, good rhetoric prevails the “dry” scientific data
  
  
• Frequently

  user-966722
  This is my both, the best and most important expertise, and unfortunately not used in legal proceedings and court decisions, because it was not legal proceedings and court decisions in COVID 19 pandemic: Radosavljević V. Analysis of COVID-19 outbreak origin in China in 2019 using differentiation method for unusual epidemiological events. Open Medicine 2021; 16: 955–963.

  
  
• 50/50

  user-855888
  Because the court depends on the expert opinions as shared with them by the identified experts. The unbiased opinions of these experts is very important because the experts so chosen are from a few institutions/ governmental officials and hence is not always totally fair on the scientific facts and is adulterated by many other forces, too.
• Seldomly

  user-546771
  Beaurucratic (Military and intelligence agencies official) interference and bribery are the main factors to affect courts decisions.
• Frequently

  user-317176
  some time
• 50/50

  user-169937
  In most court proceedings, particularly in developing nations, judgements are based on technicalities rather than science. In situations where science could come in, it is never utilized probably owing to costs associated with such scientific investigation.
• Seldomly

  user-269814
  From personal experience in one formal proceeding and from intimate information about few others.
• Frequently

  user-602450
  through written and oral consultation with well known experts in the field of interest
• Frequently

  user-619625
  Forensic science gives the most objective analyses of evidences presented in a court of law, yet decisions are based on multiple factors, which can lead sometimes to an uneffective use of available science.
• Always/nearly always

  user-330818
  Integrity is the fundamental factor in coming to fair decisions without bias or corruption. That is the basic professional aim of legal outcomes.
• 50/50

  user-838785
  50/50 is pretty ckear
• 50/50

  user-573537
  Going for the 50/50 choice seemed for me as the best choice since this particular question is lacking from a context, specifically in regards to different scientific disciplines, and very importantly, with a special reference to geographical regions around the world. Legal issues, unfortunately, are not uniformly addressed around the world. I respectfully suggest this question to be reformulated.
• 50/50

  user-639454
  While the rigorous criteria of modern science seem a natural model for this evaluation, there are features unique to the courtroom that make the decision process scarcely recognizable by normal standards of scientific investigation. First, much science lies beyond the ken of those who must decide; outside “experts” must be called upon to advise. Second, questions of fact demand immediate resolution; decisions must be based on the science of the day. Third, in contrast to the generative adversarial process of scientific investigation, which yields successive approximations to the truth, the truth-seeking strategy of American courts is terminally adversarial, which risks fracturing knowledge along lines of discord. Wary of threats to credibility, courts have adopted formal rules for determining whether scientific testimony is trustworthy
• Seldomly

  user-470786
  In my country people are all friends of political groups.  It is impossible to enforce a system of law that is 100% real.  There are and always will be favoritism in most cases
• 50/50

  user-608413
  Not always the court has availability to know how many information reqires and the pool of expert which can provide it
• Seldomly

  user-824031
  It is a combination of many factors.  "Experts" often know their little fiefdom, but not how it interacts with other fields.  You generally have two extremes selected in cases, and thus miss the middle opinions and possible even the best data.  Judges' understanding of science is poor, as is many attorneys who use scientists.  Who is to say what is best?  "Peer Reviewed "Published (p =< 0.05) data, meta-analysis.  Is it reproducible? 
  
  Doleman, Why most published meta-analysis findings are false, Controversies Colorectal Surg, 23, 925-928, 2019
  Loannides, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, Chance, 32, 1, 4-13, 2019
  Begley, Drug development, raise standards for preclinical cancer research, Nature, 483, 531-533, 2012
  Prinz, Believe it or not, how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets, Nature Rev Drug Discov, 10, 712-713, 2011