June 01, 2005

Should they be the means by which the contested Washington governor's race is decided? Or by which a federal court resolves a challenge to the Dover, Pa. school district's policy of teaching creationism/"Intelligent Design" alongside Darwinian evolution? While we're at it, if professional societies can appropriately call members to account for giving badly flawed testimony, should that happen to Sir Roy Meadow, whose testimony to the effect that multiple crib deaths generally reflect homicide may have played a role in the conviction of innocents in Great Britain? Peter Nordberg is in question-posing mode this week; as for the answers I'd give if pressed, 1) I don't know enough about the Washington situation to say; 2) if juries are being invited to reach findings of fact based on the notion of "Intelligent Design", darn right a Daubert challenge would be in order, you'd think; 3) hard to see why Meadow should be immune to scrutiny by his peers, who must naturally be concerned to clean house after an episode that has done much to bring expert medical evidence into disrepute.