While waiting for the much delayed fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, you may want to take a look at a recent law review issue on expert witnesses issues. Back in November 2024, the Columbia Science & Technology Law Review held its symposium at the Columbia Law Review on “Judging Science.” The symposium explored current judicial practice for, and treatment of, scientific expert witness testimony in the United States. Because the symposium took place at Columbia, we can expect any number of antic proposals for reform, as well.
Among the commentators on the presentations were Hon. Jed S. Rakoff, Judge on the Southern District of New York,[1] and the notorious Provost David Madigan, from Northeastern University.[2]
The current issue (vol. 26, no.2) of the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, released on May 23, 2025, contains papers originally presented at the symposium:
Edith Beerdsen, “Unsticking Litigation Science.”
Edward Cheng, “Expert Histories.”
Shari Seidman Diamond & Richard Lempert, “How Experts View the Legal System’s Use of Scientific Evidence.”
David Faigman, “Overcoming Judicial Innumeracy.”
Maura Grossman & Paul Grimm, “Judicial Approaches to Acknowledged and Unacknowledged AI-Generated Evidence.”
Valerie Hans, “Juries Judging Science.”
Enjoy the beach reading!
[1] See Schachtman, “Scientific illiteracy among the judiciary,” Tortini (Feb. 29, 2012).
[2] See, e.g., In re Accutane Litig., No. 271(MCL), 2015 WL 753674 (N.J. Super., Law Div., Atlantic Cty., Feb. 20, 2015) (excluding plaintiffs’ expert witness David Madigan); In re Incretin-Based Therapies Prods. Liab. Litig., 524 F. Supp. 3d 1007 (S.D. Cal. 2021), aff’d, No. 21-55342, 2022 WL 898595 (9th Cir. Mar. 28, 2022) (per curiam). Provost Madigan is stepping down from his position next month. Sonel Cutler, Zoe MacDiarmid & Kate Armanini, “Northeastern Provost David Madigan to step down in June,” The Huntington News (Jan. 16, 2025).
