Contemplating a Science Court: On the Question of Institutionalizing Scientific Factfinding

The past two decades have seen much discussion among legal and science professionals about the competence with which our elected officials decide upon public policy matters that have a scientific or technological dimension. A consensus seems to have formed that the present system of decision making is flawed, that policymakers lack the expertise to weigh complex technical data, and that scientific facts are too often mangled in the political arena, thus rendering rational decisions nearly impossible. Arthur Kantrowitz has been an articulate proponent of creating a science court designed to improve such decision making. The court would weigh scientific data pertaining to an issue apart from its political and moral considerations. As a current example, the Reagan admini stration’s SDI program is a controversial public policy issue with an obvious scientific and technological dimension. Just as clearly, it has political and moral dimensions. A science court might be asked to render a judgment on the technical feasibility of deploying a shield in space that would guard against incoming ballistic missiles and its economic costs relative to other technical options for achieving the same ends. In this and all other matters put to it, the court would leave aside political and moral questions, such as, should a space shield be deployed? Central to the concept of a science court is a belief in the utility of separating the technical, verifiable facts of a matter from the political and moral issues it involves. Kantrowitz proposed that the court adopt an adversarial process, in which scientist-advocates would argue the competing sides of a question before a panel of scientistjudges. As in a court of law, the advocates would have an opportunity to question the evidence submitted by the opposing side. The judges would be trained scientists, though not experts in the particular disputed issue since they would likely have a bias in the matter. Having heard the evidence, the panel of judges would render its decision. But they would not advocate how the technical judgments ought to be acted upon. Kantrowitz also proposed that the decisions of the judges be published so the political community and the public would