A significant minority (38%) said they saw the promised financial compensation as an important factor in participation. Although we found that experts rarely rejected requests for support because they felt that the fees they would receive were insufficient, expert fees can be an incentive to participate. One expert who explained his participation commented: „I believe in sharing scientific findings and making legal decisions based on scientific evidence, cases are interesting and I like money.” Another said: „I`ve been doing it for 40 years and overall I benefit a lot from this experience. It improves my research, teaching [,] collections of interesting life experiences, the feeling of helping innocent people, and the bank account. Several others stated that when deciding whether or not to participate, they considered both the time required and the amount of remuneration, with some noting that they did not accept assignments if they felt that their time was not fairly compensated. Still others bluntly described the motivating effects of fees, including respondents who explained their willingness to participate in the future as „compensation,” „payment” and „minor interest.” However, when asked about the most recent case in which they testified, only 38% indicated that financial compensation was an important motivating reason, and most rated at least three other reasons as equally important. Only one respondent cited money as the only important motivation for providing help. While some researchers refuse to be compensated for providing assistance, most expect them to be compensated, and many recognize that compensation is a motivating factor. Nevertheless, their motivation to support does not appear to be exclusively, or in most cases even largely motivated, by a profit motive. The need to bridge the gap between academics and lawyers has been widely recognized.3 Nearly 25 years ago, law professor Harold Green noted „the significant gap between scientific and legal disciplines” and suggested that academics often have the „perception that lawyers are merely interference with little ability to help science.” while the legal profession often fails to recognize the importance of working with academics to address pressing public policy issues.4 At the Supreme Court, of course, we hear not only from litigants, but also from external groups who file 30-page amicus curiae briefs that help us better inform ourselves about relevant science. In the case of the „right to die,” we received about 60 such documents, including from organizations of physicians, psychologists, nurses, palliative care workers and people with disabilities. Many discussed pain control technology, which helped us identify areas of technical consensus and disagreement. Such briefs help educate judges on potentially relevant technical issues, making us moderately educated laymen not experts, and this training improves the quality of our decisions.
The groups differed significantly in four statements in Table 6 (different indices indicate significant differences in post-hoc comparisons). In each of these comparisons, the „never asked” and „participated” groups differed from each other. When assessing lawyers` understanding, the participating group was distinctive: only participation was associated with an increased assessment of lawyers` ability to understand science. This trend is consistent with a growing appreciation of how lawyers understand science that results from close interaction. It can also be a skewed view of how lawyers understand science, as lawyers who have hired and worked with scientific experts may be better able to grasp scientific concepts than lawyers as a whole. The disputes we face increasingly concern the principles and tools of science. Any attempt to bring better science into the courtroom must respect the constitutional role of the jury. This group also included sixty members of the Academy of Class V (Public Affairs, Economics and Administration), whose expertise resided in science or technology. A science degree can take you far beyond the lab, even into the courtroom. While the connection between law and science may not be obvious, research has shown that scientists are generally good advocates. The challenge for the modern American legal system is obvious and growing, as the frequency and complexity of encounters between science and law have multiplied with the dramatic expansion of legally relevant scientific knowledge.
The courts and scientific societies are grappling with existing tensions. As Justice Kozinski`s comments suggest, and as Justice Breyer`s subsequent observations show, although Daubert placed more power of review in the hands of the judge, he fell far short of resolving the tensions that arise when science seems relevant to litigation.5 Individuals with this dual expertise can find work as environmental lawyers in forensic sciences. who work in the field of occupational health and safety. in urban planning and even as public relations specialists. However, in most cases, you will handle intellectual property matters such as patent, copyright, and trademark disputes. In this age of science, we need to create strong legal foundations in both science and law. Scientists offered their help. In the Community, on the basis of the rule of law, we should accept this offer. We are in the process of doing that. The Federal Judicial Centre`s new manual on science in the courtroom aims to open up institutional legal channels through which science – its learning, tools and principles – can flow more easily, thus better informing the law.
The manual is part of a joint scientific and legal effort that will advance the interests of truth and justice. Chi-square = 8.31, p < 0.004. This trend was replicated in the follow-up survey. Sixty-eight per cent of participants considered the legal system to be a success, while 61 per cent of non-participants did; Chi-square for combined samples = 9.15, p < 0.002. Neither age nor gender were associated with this view. The majority of the three classes of the academy considered the system a success, although the members of class II (life sciences) were the least positive (55.8%), the members of class I (mathematical and physical sciences) were more positive and class III (social sciences) was the most positive (67.9%) (chi-square 2 = 5.36, p < 0.07). Nevertheless, those who had participated as experts in the legal system were more likely to see the legal system as a success in each category than those who had not. When age, gender, academy class, and attendance are used to predict assessed success, only participation is a significant predictor (Wald = 7.09, p. < 01).