scholarly journals Improving expert evidence: the role of open science and transparency

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Chin ◽  
Bethany Growns ◽  
David Thomas Mellor
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
Disclosure Requirements ◽  
Trial Judges ◽  
Evidence Law ◽  
Science Movement

Both science and expert evidence law are undergoing significant changes. In this article, the authors compare these two movements – the open science movement and the evidence-based evidence movement. The open science movement encompasses the recent discovery of many irreproducible findings in science and the subsequent move towards more transparent methods. The evidence-based evidence movement is the discovery that many forms of expert evidence are unreliable, and that they have contributed to wrongful convictions. The authors identify similarities between these movements, which suggest how courts and legal actors may learn from the open science movement to produce more accurate results. Expert witnesses should comport themselves as rigorous open scientists to produce evidence that is more susceptible to evaluation. Parties should be subjected to more specific and rigorous disclosure requirements because research has shown that even leading scientists find it easy to discount and suppress findings that do not support their hypotheses. And trial judges, as gatekeepers, should not defer to the generally accepted practices that have proven insufficient in the mainstream sciences.

The Role of Open Science Practices in Scaling Evidence-Based Prevention Programs

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren H. Supplee ◽  
Robert T. Ammerman ◽  
Anne K. Duggan ◽  
John A. List ◽  
Dana Suskind
Keyword(s):  
Prevention Programs ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Science Practices

Open Science and Its Impact on Libraries, Publishers, and Authors

2020 ◽  
pp. 97-108
Author(s):  
Josiline Phiri Chigwada
Keyword(s):  
Information Sources ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
The Body ◽  
Digital Era ◽  
Body Of Knowledge ◽  
Structured Document ◽  
Science Movement

The open science movement enables the accessibility and reusability of research output across the globe. Researchers and other stakeholders in the research process can now easily collaborate to add to the body of knowledge. This chapter documents how open science is impacting the role of libraries, publishers, and authors in the digital era. A structured document analysis and web analysis were done to find out how authors, publishers, and librarians are affected by open science. It was found that librarians are taking advantage of open science to provide various information sources to patrons, the publishers are now charging article processing fees to make the journal articles open access upon publishing, and authors are now able to access many information sources during the research process and enjoy greater visibility of their research output. The author recommends the adoption of open science especially in the developing countries and the enactment of policies that support open science at national, regional, and international levels.

The Basis of the ‘Basis Rule’: The Role of the Basis Rule in the Admissibility of Expert Opinion

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-337
Author(s):  
Trang Phan ◽  
David Caruso
Keyword(s):  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Specific Context ◽  
High Court ◽  
General Terms ◽  
Admissible Evidence

The ‘basis rule’ is, in general terms, a rule which restricts expert witnesses to giving opinion evidence in respect of which there is or will be proof, by other admissible evidence, of the facts and assumptions upon which the opinion is based. There has been no clear consensus as to whether the basis rule exists either at common law or under the Uniform Evidence Legislation, or whether the rule goes to admissibility or weight. This article examines the jurisprudence, with a particular focus on the recent High Court decision of Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar. The authors argue that the controversy surrounding the basis rule has been the result of a misunderstanding and misconstruction of the rule. They argue that the conflict may be resolved by understanding the basis rule as simply a rearticulation, in the specific context of expert evidence, of the requirement that evidence must be relevant to be admissible. The weight of that expert evidence remains to be determined in accordance with ordinary principles.

Part II Preliminary Topics, 7 The Proof of Foreign Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torremans Paul
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
English Law

This chapter examines the question of proof of foreign law and particularly the onus of proving that the foreign law is different from English law. Foreign law is treated as a question of fact, but it is ‘a question of fact of a peculiar kind’. To describe foreign law as one of fact is apposite, in the sense that the applicable law must be ascertained according to the evidence of witnesses, yet there can be no doubt that what is involved is at bottom a question of law. The courts have concluded that a mistake as to foreign law is to be regarded as a mistake of fact. This chapter first explains how foreign law is proved, including the use of expert witnesses, before turning to witnesses who can prove foreign law. It also considers the role of the English courts under the Civil Procedure Rules in dealing with expert evidence.

The psychiatric expert in court

1984 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Kenny
Keyword(s):  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Impossible Task ◽  
The Law

SynopsisThe law about expert evidence is unsatisfactory: it gives scope for the expert to usurp the role of judge, jury and parliament; it brings the professions of the experts into disrepute; and it sets juries the impossible task of sorting pseudo sciences from genuine ones. The law should be reformed by changing statutes which force expert witnesses to testify beyond their science, by taking the provision of expert evidence out of the adversarial context, and by removing from the courts the decision whether a nascent discipline is or is not a science.

scholarly journals The biases of experts: An empirical analysis of expert witness challenges

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Chin ◽  
Michael Lutsky
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Analysis ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
Practical Operation ◽  
The Impact

Biased expert witnesses pose a distinct challenge to the legal system. In the criminal sphere, they have contributed to several wrongful convictions, and in civil cases, they can protract disputes and reduce faith in the legal system. This has inspired a great deal of legal-psychological research studying expert biases and how to mitigate them. In response to the problem of biased experts, courts have historically employed procedural mechanisms to manage partiality, but have generally refrained from using exclusionary rules. Canada diverged from this position in 2015, developing an exclusionary rule in White Burgess Langille Inman v Abbott and Haliburton Co. In this article, we assembled a database of 229 Canadian bias cases pre- and post-White Burgess to evaluate the impact that this case had on the jurisprudence. The data suggests that White Burgess increased the frequency of challenges related to expert biases, however, did not noticeably affect the proportion of experts that were excluded. This suggests that the exclusionary rule introduced in White Burgess did not significantly impact the practical operation of expert evidence law, as it pertains to bias. We conclude by recommending that one way for courts to better address the problem of biased experts is to recognize the issue of contextual bias.

The Galbraith Judgment and the Defence of Diminished Responsibility in Scotland

2005 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 297-302
Author(s):  
Nicola Hodelet ◽  
Rajan Darjee
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Diminished Responsibility

New case law on diminished responsibility in Scotland ( Galbraith v. HM Advocate 2001) re-defined the defence and clarified the role of expert witnesses. We examined how this judgment affected the use of the defence, provision of expert evidence and the outcome of trials. We studied homicide cases in one area of Scotland in the year before and the year after the new judgment. Results indicated little change in the number of cases where the defence was used, but a difference in how psychiatrists set out their opinions.

scholarly journals Improving Expert Evidence: The Role of Open Science and Transparency

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Chin ◽  
Bethany Growns ◽  
David Mellor
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Expert Evidence

scholarly journals Transparent, Open, and Reproducible Prevention Science

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Grant ◽  
Kathleen Wendt ◽  
Bonnie J. Leadbeater ◽  
Lauren H. Supplee ◽  
Evan Mayo-Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Program Planning ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Prevention Science ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Science Movement

The field of prevention science aims to understand societal problems, identify effective interventions, and translate scientific evidence into policy and practice. There is growing interest among prevention scientists in transparency, openness, and reproducibility. Open science provides opportunities to align scientific practice with scientific ideals, accelerate scientific discovery, and broaden access to scientific knowledge. Open science also addresses key challenges to the credibility of prevention science, such as irreproducibility of results, selective non-reporting (publication bias, outcome reporting bias), and other detrimental research practices. The overarching goal of this paper is to provide an overview of open science practices for prevention science researchers, and to identify key stakeholders and resources to support implementation of these practices. We consider various aspects of applying open science practices in prevention science, such as identifying evidence-based interventions. In addition, we call for the adoption of prevention science practices in the open science movement, such as the use of program planning principles to develop, implement, and evaluate open science efforts. We also identify some challenges that need to be considered in the transition to a transparent, open, and reproducible prevention science. Throughout, we identify activities that will strengthen the reliability and efficiency of prevention science, facilitate access to its products and outputs, and promote collaborative and inclusive participation in research activities. We conclude with the notion that prevention scientists are well-positioned to engage with the open science movement, especially given their expertise in examining and addressing complex social and behavioral issues. By embracing transparency, openness, and reproducibility, prevention science can better achieve its mission to advance evidence-based solutions to promote well-being.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document