The scientist met the lawyers

[Peter Rauch]

Lynne,
Perhaps one way to gather the interested bio(?)-scientists and
lawyers "together", to understand and define terms, to understand where
and how the practice of law and of science differ, and to understand the
consequences of those differences when brought into the courtroom,
...perhaps it might be useful to set up a discussion list for them? Such
an open discussion list could be an opportunity place where preparation
for the next face-to-face meeting(s) happens. It would presumably draw
from a larger group of lawyers and scientists, would help everyone to
get past the "easy" stuff, and sharpen their pencils for the more
tangled issues, etc.

Bio-Law, Sci-Law, BioSci-Law, Bio-X-Law, Sci-X-Law, ...???
Peter

 On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Lynne Corn wrote, in part:
> The division chief was very interested the question of defining terms
> like *viability* (of a population or species) in law and in science.
> Should scientists define this term and then hand it to lawyers?
> Should lawyers rework it to suit legal needs?  Should lawyers tell
> scientists what they need in definitions, and let the scientists just
> have at it?  Needless to say, we came to no real resolution on this
> question.  If any of you have thoughts on how to define terms to the
> mutual satisfaction of lawyers and scientists, be sure to let me know.

> There may be 2 consequences of this bag lunch.  I may be asked to help
> them find some academic scientists who might meet with them for more
> discussion.  Second, they may gather some scientists together who have
> been witnesses for them in the past and ask them to comment on how
> they (the scientists) might have done better, or been more useful in
> their courtroom appearances.  They might divide this group up into
> federal employees versus non-federal employees.