Dialogue about Science Peer Review in the Courts : Scientific American : Faigman

This is a “how to do it” from Law Professor David L. Faigman at Hastings of UCBerkeley. He shows an extensive review on where the US courts are on this subject and why they are not always reliable. He has some interesting proposals on “gatekeepers” and experts’ testimony.


“Properly done, peer review nearly always involves some level of anonymous evaluation by scientists actively engaged in similar research. If the law could access a similar system of independent evaluation to assess the methods and principles underlying expert testimony, it would produce a host of benefits.”


About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in AAFS, criminal justice, criminal justice reform, Forensic Science and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Dialogue about Science Peer Review in the Courts : Scientific American : Faigman

  1. GB says:

    Reblogged this on Trial by Media and commented:
    I very much agree with this idea. Just the possibility of peer review should curtail some of the bogus pseudo-science that can contribute to wrongful convictions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s