Improving Expert Evidence: The Role of Open Science and Transparency

46 Pages Posted: 25 Mar 2019 Last revised: 2 Jan 2021

See all articles by Jason Chin

Jason Chin

Australian National University (ANU) - College of Law

Bethany Growns

University of New South Wales (UNSW) - School of Psychology

David Mellor

Center for Open Science

Date Written: February 5, 2019

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

Chin, Jason and Growns, Bethany and Mellor, David, Improving Expert Evidence: The Role of Open Science and Transparency (February 5, 2019). Ottawa Law Review, Vol. 50, No. 2, 2019, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3345225 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3345225

Jason Chin (Contact Author)

Australian National University (ANU) - College of Law ( email )

Australia

Bethany Growns

University of New South Wales (UNSW) - School of Psychology ( email )

Sydney
Australia

David Mellor

Center for Open Science ( email )

210 Ridge McIntire Road
Suite 500
Charlottesville, VA
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
152
Abstract Views
1,116
Rank
350,945
PlumX Metrics