Moving beyond traditional problems of “pay-to-say” experts (e.g., the prosecutor in Phil Spector’s murder trial asked the jury: "How does a homicide become a suicide? You write a big, fat check") and the obvious advantages of having money to retain experts (e.g., Hinton v. Alabama), this panel will take up the questions of (i) how contemporary funding structures of scientific research (including privatization trends in science, conflict of interest disclosure practices, and secrecy) degrade or enhance the expertise acquired in legal contexts, and (ii) whether Daubert-type standards adequately take account of the systemic effects of funding conventions (recall the problematic distinction in Daubert on remand between “litigation science”—bought for trial, potentially biased—and pre-existing research—attracted funding, likely reliable). While economic influences on science can be beneficial, biases are identifiable in the “normal processes of science” (McGarity & Wagner), and studies show funding effects in industry-sponsored research (Krimsky).
Panelists include Professors Krimsky, the author of Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research? (2003), Professor Wagner, the co-author (with Thomas McGarity) of Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research (2008), and Professor Elliott, author of Is a Little Pollution Good for You?: Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research (2011).
Business meeting at program conclusion.