The Entrepreneurial Commercialization of Science: Evidence From 'Twin' Discoveries

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Marx ◽  
David H. Hsu
Keyword(s):  
Commercialization Of Science ◽  
Science Evidence

Forensic science evidence: Naive estimates of false positive error rates and reliability

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristy Martire ◽  
Agnes Bali ◽  
Kaye Ballantyne ◽  
Gary Edmond ◽  
Richard Kemp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Forensic Science ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Forensic Sciences ◽  
Positive Error ◽  
False Positive Error ◽  
Reliability Estimates ◽  
Positive Report ◽  
Science Evidence ◽  
Science Disciplines

We do not know how often false positive reports are made in a range of forensic science disciplines. In the absence of this information it is important to understand the naive beliefs held by potential jurors about forensic science evidence reliability. It is these beliefs that will shape evaluations at trial. This descriptive study adds to our knowledge about naive beliefs by: 1) measuring jury-eligible (lay) perceptions of reliability for the largest range of forensic science disciplines to date, over three waves of data collection between 2011 and 2016 (n = 674); 2) calibrating reliability ratings with false positive report estimates; and 3) comparing lay reliability estimates with those of an opportunity sample of forensic practitioners (n = 53). Overall the data suggest that both jury-eligible participants and practitioners consider forensic evidence highly reliable. When compared to best or plausible estimates of reliability and error in the forensic sciences these views appear to overestimate reliability and underestimate the frequency of false positive errors. This result highlights the importance of collecting and disseminating empirically derived estimates of false positive error rates to ensure that practitioners and potential jurors have a realistic impression of the value of forensic science evidence.

The exclusion of prison informant evidence for unreliability in new Zealand

2021 ◽  
pp. 136571272110112
Author(s):  
Anna High
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Social Science Evidence ◽  
Science Evidence

Prison informant or ‘jailhouse snitch’ evidence is a notoriously unreliable category of evidence. In light of reliability concerns, the New Zealand Supreme Court has adopted a progressive approach to the exclusion of prison informant evidence, centred on greater use of general exclusionary provisions as a threshold of reliability for the admission of suspect evidence. In so doing, the court has shifted the emphasis from deference to the jury as arbiter of ultimate reliability and towards more robust judicial gatekeeping as a safeguard against false testimony. This article critically analyses the New Zealand approach, including by way of comparison with Canada, Australia and England and Wales. The New Zealand approach is presented as a principled and important example of adapting fundamental evidentiary principles and provisions in line with emerging social science evidence. However, in light of the general concerns surrounding this class of evidence, ultimately further safeguards are still needed

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document