Understanding Science and Scientific Methods: An Overview for Lawyers

LEGACY CONTENT. If you are looking for Voteview.com, PLEASE CLICK HERE

This site is an archived version of Voteview.com archived from University of Georgia on May 23, 2017. This point-in-time capture includes all files publicly linked on Voteview.com at that time. We provide access to this content as a service to ensure that past users of Voteview.com have access to historical files. This content will remain online until at least January 1st, 2018. UCLA provides no warranty or guarantee of access to these files.

Understanding Science and Scientific Methods: An Overview for Lawyers

Fall Semester AY 2005-06
Mondays, 10:00 - 11:50AM

Instructor:
Keith T. Poole
Professor of Political Science
University of California, San Diego
E-Mail: KPoole@ucsd.edu
WebSite: Voteview Home Page

Course Overview

Through an examination of scientific findings in recent cases involving product liability, such as breast implants and asbestos, and regulatory affairs, we will examine the uses and misuses of science and statistics in legal decision making and in law making. The student will learn the differences between legal and scientific reasoning and how to understand scientific findings and relate them to the practice of law.

The following texts will be used in this course:

Kenneth R. Foster and Peter W. Huber. 1999. Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stephen H. Gehlbach. 2002. Interpreting the Medical Literature. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Requirements

One paper is required. The length should be no more than 20 double-spaced pages. The topic must be related to the issues raised by the course readings, discussion, and lectures. The paper must be properly footnoted and references provided. The paper is due by the end of the semester, 16 December 2005.

Course Outline

Overview -- The Collision of Science and the Law

Assignment:
- Gehlbach, Interpreting the Medical Literature, Chapters 1 and 2.
Agent Orange and Dioxin
1. The Science of Dioxin
  
  Assignment:
  - Foster and Huber, Judging Science, Chapter 2.
  - Hoover, Robert N. 1999. "Dioxin Dilemmas." Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 91(5 May 1999):745-746.
  - Kaiser, Jocelyn. 2000. "Just How Bad is Dioxin?" Science, 288 (16 June 2000):1941-1944.
  - Kaiser, Jocelyn. 2003. "Sipping From a Poisoned Chalice." Science, 302(17 October 2003):376-379.
    - Page 378 of article above
    Summary of 29 August 2005 Class
    
    Summary of 29 August 2005 Class (PDF)
2. The Use of Agent Orange in Vietnam
  
  Assignment:
  - Boyne, Walter J. 2000. "Ranch Hand." Air Force Magazine, 83(August 2000):1-9.
3. The Health Politics of Agent Orange and Dioxin
  1. The Sample Population: Are Vietnam Veterans Really that Different From Everyone Else?
    
    Assignment:
    - Foster and Huber, Judging Science, Chapter 3.
    - Gehlbach, Interpreting the Medical Literature, Chapter 3.
    - Cohany, Sharon R. 1990. "Employment and Unemployment Among Vietnam-era Veterans." Monthly Labor Review, (April 1990):22-29.
    - Barnett, Arnold, Timothy Stanley, and Michael Shore. 1992. "America's Vietnam Casualties: Victims of a Class War?" Operations Research, 40(September-October 1992):856-866.
      
      Summary of 12 September 2005 Class (PDF)
    - Scott, Wilbur J. 1990. "PTSD in DSM-III: A Case in the Politics of Diagnosis and Disease." Social Problems, 37 (August 1990):294-310.
    Recommended:
    - Burkett, B. G., and Glenna Whitley. 1998. Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation was Robbed of its Heroes and its History. Dallas, TX: Verity Press, Inc. Chapters 3, 7, 10, and 12.
  2. Cohort Studies of Dioxin
    
    Assignment:
  3. The "Ranch Hand" Cohort Study
    
    Assignment:
    - Gehlbach, Interpreting the Medical Literature, Chapters 5, 6, and 7.
    - Air Force Statement on Results From the 1997 Physical Examination of the Ranch Hand Study.
    - Frumkin, Howard. 2003. "Agent Orange and Cancer: An Overview for Clinicians." CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 53 (July/August):245-255.
      
      Summary of 26 September 2005 Class (PDF)
    - Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2000. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, Chapters 2 - 5.
4. Agent Orange in the Courtroom: U. S. Veterans vs. Dow Chemical, 1984 "Settlement"?
  
  Assignment:
  - In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, 597 F. Supp. 740 (E.D.N.Y. 1984), LEXIS 23337.
  - In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, 611 F. Supp. 1396 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), LEXIS 19468.
    
    Summary of 3 October 2005 Class (PDF)
  - Oral Argument Dow Chemical v. Stephenson, 26 February 2003.
  - Amicus Curiae Brief of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
  - Amicus Curiae Brief of the Washington Legal Foundation.
  - Dow Chemical v. Stephenson
  Summary of the Known Health Effects of Dioxin on Vietnam Veterans
Bendectin and Morning Sickness: Can Any Product be Absolutely Safe?
1. The Science of Bendectin: How Certain Can Epidemological Studies Be?
  1. What is Scientific Knowledge?
    
    Definitions of Science and the Scientific Method (PDF)
    
    Assignment:
    - Foster and Huber, Judging Science, Chapter 4.
    Summary of 10 October 2005 Class (PDF)
    
    Examples of Axiomatic Systems (PDF)
  2. Does Scientific Knowledge have a Special Status?
    
    Assignment:
    - Foster and Huber, Judging Science, Chapter 5.
    Summary of 17 October 2005 Class (PDF)
  3. Can there be Certainty in Science?
    
    Assignment:
    - Foster and Huber, Judging Science, Chapter 6.
  4. What is Scientific Consensus and who is Qualified to State What it is?
    
    Assignment:
    - Foster and Huber, Judging Science, Chapter 7.
  Summary of 24 October 2005 Class (PDF)
2. The Placebo Effect
  
  Assignment:
  - Jones, Timothy F. et al. 2000. "Mass Psychogenic Illness Attributed to Toxic Exposure at a High School." The New England Journal of Medicine, 342 (13 January 2000):96-100.
  - Wessely, Simon. 2000. "Responding to Mass Psychogenic Illness." The New England Journal of Medicine, 342 (13 January 2000):129-130.
  Summary of 31 October 2005 Class (PDF)
3. The Health Politics of Bendectin
  
  Assignment:
  - Brent, Robert L. 1995. "Bendectin: Review of the Medical Literature of a Comprehensively Studied Human Nonteratogen and the Most Prevalent Tortogen-Litigen." Reproductive Toxicology, 9:337-349.
  Summary of 7 November 2005 Class (PDF)
4. Bendectin in the Courtroom: William Daubert et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  
  Assignment:
  - Foster and Huber, Judging Science, Chapters 8, 9, and Appendices A, B, and C.
  Frye, Rule 702, and Rehnquist (PDF)
  
  Daubert and Science Questions (PDF)
  
  Summary of 14 November 2005 Class (PDF)
Breast Implants: What Happens if there is no Scientific Evidence Regarding the Safety of a Device or Product?

Assignment:
Recommended:
- Angell, Marcia. 1997. Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Summary of 21 November 2005 Class (PDF)
Asbestos: How Dangerous is Dangerous?

Assignment:
- Mossman, B. T., J. Bignon, M. Corn, A. Seaton, and J. B. L. Gee. 1990. "Asbestos: Scientific Developments and Implications for Public Policy." Science, 247 (19 January 1990):294-301.
- Hammond, E. C., Irving J. Selikoff, and Herbert Seidman. 1979. "Asbestos Exposure, CIgarette Smoking and Death Rates." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 330:473-490.
- Enterline, Philip E. 1976. "Pitfalls in Epidemiological Research: An Examination of the Asbestos Literature." Journal of Occupational Medicine, 18 (March 1976):150-156.
Conclusion