SETTING BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SCIENCE AND LAW - LESSONS FROM DAUBERT V MERRELL-DOW-PHARMACEUTICALS-INC

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, the U.S. Supreme Court made its first major pronouncement on the evaluation of scientific ev idence, calling on judges to act as gatekeepers for scientific knowled ge and validity despite lack of scientific training among judges. Daub ert offers the science studies community a case study for examining ho w judges (and scientists acting as experts) engage in boundary-work an d construct scientific validity. In constructing scientific validity u nder Daubert, judges must evaluate the scientific method behind a part icular scientific claim and will look to the parties' experts and the relevant scientific community for assistance. To combat the oft-cited problem of the battle of the experts, judges may be tempted to obtain assistance from court-appointed neutral experts, an inquisitorial (rat her than adversarial) system in the civil law tradition of many Europe an countries. The judicial evaluation of scientific evidence, the resu lting construction of scientific validity, and the push for a greater use of court-appointed experts reveal judges' desire to segregate ''ob jective'' scientific facts from aspects of the legal process that are infused with adversaries' values. Pet the scientific and judicial cons truction of validity mixes empirical results and research methods with the personal, political, and institutional values of judges and scien tists.