SCIENCE MAGAZINE - Late last year, the sound of scientific argument echoed through a New York City courtroom packed with legal and financial experts. Studies from top epidemiology journals flashed onto large screens, as lawyers debated their statistical power and whether their conclusions rested on “cherry-picked” data.
Billions of dollars were at stake.
Some scientists also worry taking sides in litigation will force them to present one-sided interpretations of the evidence. “The more you study and construct arguments and think through your arguments, it reinforces the position you’ve taken,” says David Eastmond, an environmental scientist who recently retired from UC Riverside. Eastmond worked briefly as an expert witness, but found the adversarial process uncomfortable.
“Attorneys, by their nature, want to polarize things, so that things become more black and white. And in my experience, things are sort of gray,” Eastmond says.