Science and the law have never been easy bedfellows. Both rely on evidence and reasoned judgement to arrive at truth, but the methods used and the end results are generally very different. For example, legal proceedings must arrive at a kind of satisfactory closure, but a scientific conclusion is at least theoretically provisional, and open forever to revision. Experts have been called into court as witnesses for centuries: in France, for example, following Roman law, some of the earliest experts were handwriting analysts, brought in to distinguish genuine from forged signatures. The use of historians in the court, however, is rather new. Science historians are increasingly being asked to serve as expert witnesses, especially in cases of product litigation, where the question is often "who knew what when?" about the nature or extent of a hazard.
展开▼
