Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 


advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Cardozo Law School's Susan Crawford battles telecom giants, per NYT here.  (LAC)

University governance as a new topic of public discussion.

An unusual profile of Mary Anne Franks (kw)

Aggressive copyright litigation run amok. (fp)

USA Today's Matt Krantz quoting me on Warren Buffett joining Twitter.  (LAC)

Private prisons? Why, sure! What could possibly go wrong? (kw)

TNR profiles Susan Crawford (kw)

Berkshire Hathaway is bigger than Warren Buffett.  Manual of Ideas (LAC).

Guns don't shoot people, kitchen appliances shoot people (kw)

Via Glom, Sat Eve Post review of The Essays of Warren Buffett.


Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Personal Injury Lawyer on Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma

    • Lawrence Cunningham on Mr. Buffett Joins a Board

    • Guy Spier on Mr. Buffett Joins a Board

    • John Mihaljevic on Mr. Buffett Joins a Board

    • Kal on Towards Responsible Use of Cognition-Dulling Drugs

    • anon on The Pervasive Role of Priors: Part One

    • Joe on Kentucky: Boy, 5, Kills Sister, 2

    • mls on Copyright’s Constitutional Chameleon

    • Shag from Brookline on Kentucky: Boy, 5, Kills Sister, 2

    • Brett Bellmore on Kentucky: Boy, 5, Kills Sister, 2

    • Daniel Barth-Jones on Re-Identification Risks and Myths, Superusers and Super Stories (Part II: Superusers and Super Stories)

    • Daniel Barth-Jones on Re-Identification Risks and Myths, Superusers and Super Stories (Part I: Risks and Myths)

    • Daniel Barth-Jones on Re-Identification Risks and Myths, Superusers and Super Stories (Part II: Superusers and Super Stories)

    • Daniel Barth-Jones on Re-Identification Risks and Myths, Superusers and Super Stories (Part I: Risks and Myths)

    • Shag from Brookline on Kentucky: Boy, 5, Kills Sister, 2
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Science and Law

posted by Gerard Magliocca

During the Bush Administration, there was a lot of concern expressed about how religious faith was distorting policy judgments on issues such as stem-cell research.  I think these fears were overblown (with apologies to Andrew Sullivan).  What surprises me, though, is that people do not talk much about the opposite problem — how science can distort the law.

There are two reasons why this should be of concern.  First, science can be . . . er . . . wrong.  It is more accurate to say that science is always incomplete, but sometimes that incompleteness can be so serious that the conclusions drawn are unreliable.  Second, science cannot answer ethical issues. Something could well be scientifically valid but morally wrong.  Here are a few examples:

At the turn of the twentieth century, there was a broad consensus that racism was scientifically valid. This finding was used as a justification for colonialism, segregation, the denial of voting rights, and all sorts of other practices.  In effect, if you supported racial equality at that time, you were an “anti-science” person making decisions based on something irrational like faith.  Later, of course, this science on race was discredited.  

A few decades later, many serious scientists were doing research on eugenics.  This was also embraced by policymakers who derided those who fought for disabled rights as “anti-science.” Holmes was the most notable example of this attitude in his opinion in Buck v. Bell upholding the sterilization of what he called “imbeciles.”  The only dissenter in Buck (without opinion) was Justice Pierce Butler.  Why did he dissent?  Probably because he was a devout Roman Catholic.  Did that make him an irrational “theocrat,” to use the modern phrase?

This brings me to the debate about global warming.  While there is no faith-based objection to doing something about climate change, the question is what level of confidence should politicians have in that science before they take significant policy decisions?  I don’t have a good answer to that, though my own conversations with people who study climate change suggest that that field of study is more incomplete than most.  Consider the small sample size.  The Earth is billions of years old, but we only have climate data over a period of thousands or maybe tens of thousands of years.  

The lesson is that caution should be exercised when wrenching changes on energy or regulatory policy are based on current scientific trends.  Sometimes the “anti-science” people are right.


 May 29, 2009 at 7:52 am   Posted in: Jurisprudence   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (6)

  1. Xanthippas - May 29, 2009 at 10:49 am

    Okay, but it would be more helpful to mention concrete examples of where a scientific principle underlying some policy change has been discredited. Yes “scientific” racism and eugenics are examples, but they are old examples, and from a time when science in general was less advanced in its methodology and peer review was less rigorous. I think it’s fair to say that there may be more uncertainty in climate science than we believe, but climate science-the conclusions of which are broadly agreed upon by scientists the world over-is hardly in the same ballpark of outright falsehood as eugenics.

  2. Gerard Magliocca - May 29, 2009 at 12:23 pm

    What about the “food pyramid” based on the best nutritional science of the 1960s and 1970s? (Eat lots of carbohydrates). How’d that work out?

  3. Mark McKenna - May 29, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    “Holmes was the most notable example of this attitude in his opinion in Buck v. Bell upholding the sterilization of what he called “imbeciles.” The only dissenter in Buck (without opinion) was Justice Pierce Butler. Why did he dissent? Probably because he was a devout Roman Catholic.”

    So you’re saying that Justice Butler was a lawless judicial activist who allowed his personal beliefs to influence his decisions? :)

  4. Dave Roth - May 29, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    It seems to me there’s a pretty enormous difference between your other examples and climate change. Specifically, the consequences of action or inaction are not symmetrical and this has implications for what level of scientific certainty we should require in order to make policy.

    Take eugenics. You’re a policymaker at the turn of the century who believes the scientific “consensus” behind eugenics. If you act on this scientific “consensus” and sterilize a lot of people, and it is later revealed that the eugenics science is false, then you’ve done something enormously unjust and hurt a lot of people.

    However, if you don’t adopt any policy measures in light of the science, and the science turns out to be true, then there doesn’t seem to be a huge amount of harm. I guess you’ve slightly delayed the evolution of the human race (or something; I’m not quite sure what eugenicists would say).

    So in this case, it seems that policymakers should have required a much higher level of scientific certainty on the question of eugenics, since there are enormous harms if they act on the basis of this science and the science proves false, but much smaller harms if they don’t act on the science and it proves true. The consequences of acting and being wrong are much worse than the consequences of not acting and being wrong. So skepticism and caution seem justified.

    But on climate change, the possible outcomes are quite different. If we act on climate change science and restrict emissions, and it turns out that the science is wrong, then we’ve slowed global growth by a few percentage points of GDP. That sucks, I guess.

    But if we don’t act, and it turns out the science is right, well then we’ve got a huge disaster (if you believe the scientists’ projections).

    So on climate change, the consequences of not acting and being wrong are much worse (at least so it seems to me) than acting and being wrong.

    In light of this, I think policymakers should require less scientific certainty to take action than in, say, eugenics.

    I don’t know what to say about your food pyramid example, since I can’t really speculate as to what harms were caused by adopting it in error, nor do I know what would’ve happened if we hadn’t adopted it. I think it’s safe to say, though, that the harms of adopting an erroneous food pyramid are probably much less than the harms of failing to act on climate science will be if that science turns out to be correct.

  5. Matt - May 29, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    At the turn of the twentieth century, there was a broad consensus that racism was scientifically valid.

    This partly shows how hard this sort of thing is. Why this _might_ be true of a majority of researchers at the time, it certainly wasn’t the only respectable view. Franz Boas, for example, one of the founders of modern anthropology, was arguing quite explicitly at just this time that scientific racism was bunk. He may not have had the majority view, but he had a strong and important one. His view was made less influential for some time not for “scientific” reasons but more or less nakedly political ones- hatred of Germans and “leftists” by old WASP types in science, the academy, and politics at the time.

  6. A.J. Sutter - May 29, 2009 at 8:47 pm

    There was an even bigger problem during the Bush Administration than that of relgious faith distorting policy decisions: it was that the Administration’s religious proclivities, business interests, etc. were leading to censorship or suppression of scientific information on which policies might be based, or at least against which the policies could be evaluated.

    You’re right that science doesn’t give guidance about morality. But I don’t think any of your examples show that “anti-science” people were right — only that some scientists have been wrong. Matt’s example is a good one (though apropos of the Boas case he could have added anti-Semitism to his list of hostilities).

    Dave Roth is correct to distinguish the eugenics and racism issues (were these ever distinct?) from climate change. In this case, among others, the precautionary principle deserves more respect than it gets from the champions of cost-benefit analysis. It’s a flexible principle requiring judgment (rather than a rule, like CBA, based on a superficially objective algorithm that conceals judgments). In this it’s no different from most other practical judgments, especially the moral ones you correctly emphasize.

    Moreover, the small sample size issue that you raise is specious. This issue is nothing new in daily life. E.g., all questions of political policy, and most decisions in business, are based on the need to make decisions in the face of new circumstances. Consequently, they rely more on Bayesian than frequentist foundations (or readers who are soi-pensant economists can use Frank Knight’s fuzzy distinction between risk and uncertainty if they prefer).

    You were the guy who posted that terrific quote from Yes, Prime Minister, weren’t you? You seem to be forgetting it’s satire here.

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Kelli A. Alces
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ryan Calo
Claire Hill
Jay Kesten
William McGeveran
Meredith Render
Aaron Saiger
David L. Schwartz
Olivier Sylvain
Charles K. Whitehead
Aaron Zelinsky


















Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Derek Bambauer
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Khiara Bridges
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Gabriella Coleman
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
andré douglas pond cummings
Allison Danner
Laura DeNardis
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Susan Freiwald
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Vivian E. Hamilton
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Angela Harris
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Tayyab Mahmud
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Janai Nelson
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
David Opderback
David Orentlicher
Michael O'Shea
Kristen Osenga
Mary-Rose Papandrea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
William Reynolds
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Brishen Rogers
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schleicher
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Lea Shaver
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Peter Swire
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Joseph Turow
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Elizabeth A. Wilson
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
Privacy and Security Training
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress