The Science Court Symposia

Contents

The tables of contents for two issues of Risk available online. The articles in both issues addressed the kinds of problems that led to the proposed "Science Court." Volume and page numbers are indicated by, e.g., 4.95. The second set of papers was presented at a 1994 conference; the program and list of registered conferees are also available.

Twenty-Five Year Retrospective on the Science Court

Thomas G. Field, Jr., Introduction: The Science Court is Dead; Long Live the Science Court!-- 4.95

Arthur Kantrowitz, Elitism vs. Checks and Balances in Communicating Scientific Information to the Public -- 4.101
The "father of the Science Court" describes his objective in proposing that institution (as it has come to be known), his efforts to get a major public test of the concept and insights gained since the initial proposal was made in 1967.

Carl F. Cranor, Science Courts, Evidentiary Procedures and Mixed Science-Policy Decisions -- 4.113
Professor Cranor analyzes the potential for science courts to address the social need to regulate human carcinogens and concludes that, on balance, it is not high. From this vantage point, he suggests desiderata for application in other areas where science courts might be used.

Itzhak Jacoby Consensus Development at NIH: What Went Wrong? -- 4.133
A close observer identifies the Science Court concept as inspiring consensus development conferences at the National Institutes of Health and describes the extent to which they have followed the model. Professor Jacoby also argues that, if the model were more closely followed, conference objectives would be better realized.

Sheila Jasanoff, Procedural Choices in Regulatory Science -- 4.143
Professor Jasanoff compares four approaches to using science in regulatory decision making -- one very similar to the Science Court proposal. She argues generally that that proposal would be less useful than procedures more sensitive to the distinctive characteristics of regulatory science.

Allan Mazur, The Science Court: Reminiscence and Retrospective -- 4.161
A self-described "agnostic" on the merits of the Science Court proposal, Professor Mazur describes how he independently arrived at a similar notion and played a role in efforts to secure a major test of the proposal. He also analyzes university-based experiments structured around that model and concludes that the controversial "judges" are probably unnecessary to achieve his original objectives.

Jon R. Cavicchi, The Science Court: A Bibliography -- 4.171
Mr. Cavicchi lists articles that focus specifically on the Science Court as proposed by Professor Kantrowitz in the mid-sixties. In a separate part, he also lists articles casually mentioning it in assorted contexts.

Task Force of the Presidential Advisory Group on Anticipated Advances in Science and Technology, The Science Court Experiment: An Interim Report -- 4.179
So that these papers may largely stand on their own, the formal proposal that appeared in Science in 1976 is reprinted with permission.

Which Scientist Do You Believe?
Process Alternatives in Technological Controversies

Thomas G. Field, Jr., Introduction -- 6.97
Beyond introducing these papers, Professor Field argues that those designing processes for tasks originally contemplated by the Science Court proposal should closely consider, e.g., intervening experience with alternative dispute resolution.

Arthur Kantrowitz, The Separation of Facts and Values -- 6.105
Dr. Kantrowitz maintains that much modern pessimism derives from failure to separate what is from what ought to be and urges that scientific conflicts be resolved as value neutrally as possible.

Peter W. Huber, Coping with Phantom Risks in the Courts -- 6.111
Dr. Huber describes "Phantom" risks as those tending to hover indefinitely, never to crystallize. He argues that legal procedures should optimally lead to closure and eliminate unwarranted fears.

Kristin S. Shrader-Frechette, Evaluating the Expertise of Experts -- 6.115
Professor Shrader-Frechette maintains that a rigid distinction between risk assessment and risk management is unwise. Concerned about procedural fairness, she argues that the public should have a voice in both.

Sidney A. Shapiro, Resolving Technological Controversies in Regulatory Agencies -- 6.127
Professor Shapiro notes that, e.g., advisory committees may increase technical accuracy at the price of delaying already slow rule making and urges Congress and the courts to provide agencies with broad procedural discretion.

Itzhak Jacoby, Resolving Medical Controversies -- 6.139
Dr. Jacoby explains why emerging technologies must be evaluated expeditiously. He also argues that an approach closely following "Science Court" tenets would more uniformly guide practitioners and insurers.

Norman L. Balmer, Alternative Dispute Resolution in Patent Controversies -- 6.145
Mr. Balmer relates how ADR allows attorneys to tailor rules to resolve disputes in light of, e.g., party relationships and internal dynamics. He notes that, for life to go on, having resolution is itself an important goal.

Jeffrey S. Lubbers, The Regulatory Reform Recommendations of the National Performance Review -- 6.153
Of ten recommendations Mr. Lubbers discusses, several were of particular interest. These include encouraging consensus-based rule making and ADR in enforcement, as well as ranking risks and improving regulatory science.

Dalton G. Paxman, Congressional Risk Proposals -- 6.165
Dr. Paxman relates how an ambitious environmental agenda supported by the Administration and many members of the 103d Congress was ultimately derailed. He associates this with an apparently ever-growing interest in risk assessment.

Conference information -- 6.183

Conferees -- 6.184

Risk Articles Index

Modified 8/18/96 tgf
URL: http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/scict.htm
© 1996 Franklin Pierce Law Center. All rights reserved.


Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street • Concord, NH 03301 • 603.228.1541
© 2002-2007 Franklin Pierce Law Center. All rights reserved.