Standards for Judicial Education on Scientific Topics
Release Date: 04/05/2024
The Marketplace of Ideas
Professor of Law and Executive Director of the Economics Center at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, Donald J. Kochan, moderates a discussion about the Standards for Judicial Education on Scientific Topics. This conversation, recorded in January, 2024, features David Faigman of the University of California College of Law, Jonathan Klick of the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, Gary Marchant of the Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, and Charles R. Santerre of Clemson University, who provide their expertise on teaching judges about...
info_outline Perspectives on the Economics and Law of ArbitrationThe Marketplace of Ideas
info_outline The Role of Third-Party Financing in the Litigation EcosystemThe Marketplace of Ideas
info_outline Lawyer Advertising: Legislation, Free Speech, and Consumer ProtectionThe Marketplace of Ideas
info_outline Developments in Discovery ReformThe Marketplace of Ideas
info_outline Medical Devices and 510(k)The Marketplace of Ideas
info_outline Locality Litigation and Public NuisanceThe Marketplace of Ideas
info_outline Updates on Amendments to Rule 702: Admissibility of Expert TestimonyThe Marketplace of Ideas
info_outline Scientific Methodology and the Admissibility of Expert TestimonyThe Marketplace of Ideas
info_outline The State of Civil Justice: Past, Present, and FutureThe Marketplace of Ideas
info_outlineProfessor of Law and Executive Director of the Economics Center at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, Donald J. Kochan, moderates a discussion about the Standards for Judicial Education on Scientific Topics. This conversation, recorded in January, 2024, features David Faigman of the University of California College of Law, Jonathan Klick of the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, Gary Marchant of the Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, and Charles R. Santerre of Clemson University, who provide their expertise on teaching judges about science and how to understand scientific methodology, how to evaluate scientific topics as a non-expert, and how to consider the admissibility of expert testimony.
What standards can be employed to ensure that the teachers of judges remain objective educators rather than using the podium to teach the judges how to achieve policy outcomes and overcome scientific barriers to those outcomes? What is appropriate and what is not in educating judges about science? What should be the objective of this kind of specialized judicial education – is it to empower the judges to understand science or to provide tools for activism from the bench? How do you remain objective as an instructor and in the curriculum? What standards should be used when teaching science to ensure that you do not cross the line into helping judges manipulate science to achieve preferred policy objectives? What are some good and bad models of judicial education on science, and how can judges identify them? These and other questions were explored.