Scientific Theory versus Legal Theory.

I would like to respond to John Cairns' editorial on the developing role of ecotoxicology (1). Cairns' belief that a paradigm shift to assess the value of natural capital is crucial for this planet's sustained use is understandable and warranted; however, in achieving this goal, Cairns fails to realize that the shift, especially in a democracy, must be directed from below, from the body politic, and not from scientists, lawyers, or politicians.

Cairns (1) correctly assesses lawyers and politicians--their knowledge of science is limited and self-serving--but after years of hearing complaints about lawyers and politicians, and years of working with scientists and engineers, I have concluded that the narrow-minded, egotistical, and self-centered disposition claimed of lawyers is more of result of human nature rather than inherent to the profession, meaning scientists and engineers suffer from the same qualities. The belief that science offers an absolute, irrefutable answer to the problems of the planet shows the overwhelming belief in science, and forgoing the impact of other dynamics such as human nature, the natural world, and the physical world itself.

Legal theories undergo the same torturous scrutiny as scientific theories: they are subjected to peer review, challenges, and political judgments, and they ultimately survive by the test of time. Occasionally, theories are placed before the Supreme Court, the final arbitrator in the United States; the court makes rulings that may later be overruled, modified, or accepted. The Supreme Court, though loathe to admit it, is made up of individuals--individuals who study law and apply it equally based on the case or theory before the court, and who more often than not disagree with one another. These are individuals who have been chosen by a political process; they have been appointed by a government made up of individuals who have their own particular views of legal theory.

How can a science court be different? Is science so immune from controversy that any scientific theory would be incontrovertible by science judges? Any judge, ultimately, will be appointed by some political process, and to claim that any set of individuals, even scientists and engineers from the National Academy of Science, could absolutely determine scientific theories without disagreement is a farce. Debates will occur; this is ultimately the strength, not the weakness, of scientific theory as well as legal theory.

Although scientific principle is irrefutable, scientific theory is not, and just as with political and legal theory, scientific theory becomes justified through debate, analysis, and time. Scientific theory is no more absolute than law, and although a judiciary more enlightened on science may be warranted, the idea of a science court is fraught with the same inconsistencies as a court of law.

For a scientific theory, no matter how legitimate, to move forward legally and politically, the theory must be subjected to continuous scrutiny and must be able to stand before the courts of law and politics before it can actually change human nature.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

(1.) Cairns J Jr. The developing role of ecotoxicology in industrial ecology and natural capitalism. Environ Health Perspect 108:A346-A348 (2000).

Doug Farquhar National Conference of State Legislatures Denver, Colorado E-mail: [e-mail] Fax: [phone]