Standards for Judicial Education on Scientific Topics

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 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.