In your opinion, has there been a decline in the quality of science used by courts in recent years?

Answer Explanations

• I dont know

  user-184082
  Not come across the same
• I dont know

  user-242774
  I am not really involved in courtroom science, but I would hazard a guess that it is still pretty much fine.  But I am pretty sure that the science is getting a lot more complicated for judges and juries to comprehend.  
• I dont know

  user-819800
  Haven’t followed any legal cases where science has been involved.
• No

  user-82093
  NO
• I dont know

  user-156962
  Which country are we talking about? I don't think that science has been a strong component in most court cases throughout the world in any case. Even forensic science is not always all that clear. So ideally the question should be asked more specifically. Else I can only provide a subjective opinion, which in all probability is way off. Instinctively people will say it has declined. But probably it has improved.
• No

  user-523578
  The quality of evidence directly correlates with the competence of the expert witnesses.
• Yes

  user-643355
  Too willing to accept poor data and uncontrolled statistical estimates
• I dont know

  user-475346
  I have not been intimately involved in any recent court cases, or followed any closely enough in the news, to be aware of the quality of the science.
• No

  user-623341
  KEEP quality
• Yes

  user-935064
  The courts are increasingly giving deference to rhetoric over evidence.  Evidence requires documentation of events; rhetoric rests on the power of persuasion independent of evidence.
• No

  user-109201
  Even now a days due to advancement in forensics and AI.  It is easier to investigate criminal cases which leads to fast and accurate judgement.
• No

  user-562202
  With advancement in Science and technology,  these advances rob off in the quality of science used by  courts in recent times
• I dont know

  user-199257
  I don't think I can give a general opinion on something that depends on such specific situations.
• Yes

  user-494570
  Using scientific evidence in courtrooms becomes a complex issue and a lot efforts are required to keep a balance between scientific validity and justice
  
  
• I dont know

  user-573085
  I would presume that like everything in life, what is presented in court as scientific evidence relates mostly to the expertise of the expert witness on scientific methodology.  The spectrum of knowledge in science and medicine is huge.  I am always amazed at how little most physicians, for example, read the peer-reviewed literature and remain abreast of the latest developments.  Most physicians and many scientists today are years behind the latest developments. An example: on a visit to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, I was informed about a "new" test being obtained to assess renal function. The test was Cystatin-C. My remark to the physician is this is not a new test and I have been using it for about 20 years. Not only that, but creatinine clearance using Cystatin-C is a more accurate test than the purported gold standards in use. 
• No

  user-210238
  In the 1980's there was a huge controversy regarding a multimillion dollar award to a woman claiming birth defects suffered by her baby were the result of a vaginal spermicide.  This created a huge upset in the scientific community because there were absolutely no data linking any of the key product ingredients to any adverse reproductive effects.  The point was made clear by several leading scientific and clinical experts on adverse reproductive outcomes that the implicated chemical agents had been evaluated for reproductive safety concerns and none were found.  The jury's verdict was viewed within the scientific community as so alarming several journals published articles exploring the disconnect between the available scientific data and the legal outcome.  I will never forget one quote mentioned an article in the journal "Science".  While every scientist cited in the article was shocked by the jury's decision one of the legal scholars quoted in the piece was not surprised.  He said, in effect, SCIENCE is about "facts".  The collection and interpretation of observational data to establish the most likely "TRUTH".  The law, on the other hand, is about JUSTICE.  In this case, the jury clearly thought justice was served by providing help for the family dealing with the consequence of this unintended pregnancy by awarding a judgment against the multinational company whose product was being used to prevent conception.  Even if not clearly responsible for the outcome it seemed only fair, according to jury members, that the family receive needed financial help.  
  
  The bottom line is that in cases like this, it is wrong to view  "science" as being on trial.  When applying the scientific method to safety testing, the null hypothesis is that the compound is safe.  We conduct studies using multiple experimental models (in vitro and in vivo), in multiple species (non-human and human), pushing exposures to their practical limits for the longest practical durations.  With no findings of concern (or, at least, at exposures below those associated with findings of concern) we conclude safety.  However, if pressed, few scientists would state, unequivocally, that "risk" has been fully discharged.  There will always times in a court of law where the pursuit of justice will trample the best available science.
• I dont know

  user-444118
  Since this is a very broad question, I simply do not have enough data to make a responsible reply. One thing for sure, there are many legal cases involving scientific issues that garner national headlines. In many of those cases many of the legal arguments are made by "corporate scientists" who are essentially paid members of the corporation involved in the legal case - a definite conflict of interest. These news making cases represent only a small percentage of the legal cases that may involve scientific experts. Thus, because many of the legal cases involving science are not covered by the news media, it is hard to determine if the best possible scientific knowledge is being used to complete the work. I would like to think that most scientists, if properly educated will always seek the truth in their testimonies. I still think this latter aspect will continue into the future.
• Yes

  user-151889
  Frequently judges think The Daubert "Rule" includes the opinion not the methodology. If there is science to support an opinion it should  not be excluded because the judge disagrees. The judges in the federal court in particular are using their opinion and not letting it be decided by the jury.
• No

  user-535602
  Assessing the quality of science used by courts can be complex and context-dependent, but there have been ongoing discussions about challenges in this area. Some argue that there's been a decline due to various factors such as the proliferation of unreliable or biased research, the difficulty for judges in understanding complex scientific concepts, and the influence of politics or financial interests on the interpretation of scientific evidence.
  However, it's also important to note that efforts are being made to improve the use of science in the legal system. For instance, there's been an increased emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration between scientists and legal experts, the development of specialized courts or judges with scientific expertise, and the promotion of evidence-based approaches to decision-making. Overall, the issue is nuanced, and it's essential to continue striving for improvements in the integration of science and the legal system to ensure that justice is served effectively.
• Yes

  user-74194
  In some cases.  Scientific expertise among lawyers and judges depends on how hard an individual is willing to work to learn science.
• No

  user-463486
  In Brazil, the quality of science used by courts has increased in recent years, especially in cases involving forensics, medical malpractice, environmental issues, and more.
• Yes

  user-836452
  Still long-lasting echos to Trumps contempt of science
• Yes

  user-369565
  This decline is concerning because accurate scientific evidence is crucial for informing legal decisions related to climate change and its impacts. 
• Yes

  user-236807
  Yes in my opinion because sometimes you have to prove scientific illusions in the court
• I dont know

  user-692996
  in my country, many people in the courts do not use science. 
• Yes

  user-994314
  The contesting parties are utilising peer-reviewed research to out fox the opposition and there is no regulations regarding the use of such research.
• Yes

  user-155273
  The changing landscape of scientific knowledge, as well as the rising complexity of judicial matters, make it difficult to ensure consistent quality of science in court.
• No

  user-532952
  I am a veterinarian in Academia who is an expert  witness for the High Court in South Africa and so keep up with cases that involve my knowledge of laws pertaining to  livestock diseases and animal welfare. In my field, science is important for risk management: animal welfare, dog bites, outbreaks of epidemics/pandemics  etc
• No

  user-851905
  The science is still sound but the interpretation is lacking.
• No

  user-718562
  Eventhough there have been isolated cases where the reliability of scientific evidence in courts has been doubted, there is not a widespread decline. The advancements in scientific methodologies and heightened awareness of the need for rigorous standards have led to enhancements in the quality of scientific evidence presented in legal settings. Furthermore, ongoing initiatives aimed at educating and training legal professionals in comprehending and evaluating scientific evidence are reinforcing the integrity of the legal system
• I dont know

  user-642158
  I am uninformed of this aspect
• I dont know

  user-18157
  In my humble opinion, while it remains challenging to definitively determine if an overall decline has taken place, it is clear that significant challenges persist in affecting the quality of scientific evidence presented in courts. 
• Yes

  user-320876
  There is substantial evidence of a decline in the quality of science utilized by courts in recent years, including:
  a. Heavy censorship of articles that do not align with the narrative of medical decision-makers.
  b. A rise in disease incidence among both the young and old, particularly in America.
  c. A deficiency in diversity within decision-making roles for both publicly and privately funded projects.
  d. An absence of transparency concerning data on vaccine or drug science.
  e. The application of double standards in the evaluation of publicly and privately funded projects.