Complimentary Article

Juries are often incapable of truly understanding the differences between good and bad science, especially when well-qualified experts on both sides appear convincing. The key to solving this problem is to educate courts on how to objectively assess the literature, and only permit expert opinions that meet the high standards of truly reliable science; thus, truly fulfilling their gatekeeping role of only permitting scientifically-reliable expert opinions to support claims of toxic exposure. The scientific, regulatory, and legal fields can better support courts in their gatekeeping responsibilities by continuing this open dialogue and transparently acknowledging differing opinions, methodologies, and missions.

To read more, please click below to download a copy of the article, published by The Journal of Science and Law.