About the Cover
Cover. Every day in the United States, federal trial judges determine whether expert scientific testimony is admissible based upon their assessment of its relevance and reliability. While the spirit of this process is to improve the quality of evidentiary science, lay judges' rulings have resulted in respected scientists being barred from offering expert testimony in civil cases. As science becomes more complex and specialized, both nonscientists and scientists lacking required expertise are less able to evaluate the legitimacy of scientific processes and findings. In the case of the judiciary, this will likely increase errors in rulings on the admissibility of expert testimony. The papers included in this special supplement examine how recent developments in the legal and regulatory arenas have emboldened corporations involved in civil litigation and regulatory proceedings to accuse adversaries of practicing "junk science" while in criminal cases the failure to apply rigorous scientific standards have sometimes cost innocent and impoverished defendants their freedom, if not their lives.
Cover concept and selection by Aleisha Kropf, David Michaels, Celeste Monforton, and Robert Sember.
Photograph by Royalty-Free/Corbis.
[Table of Contents]
Copyright © 2005 by the American Public Health Association.
