"From One Footnote, a Debate over the Tangles of Law, Science, and Money," from the New York Times
I have an opinion about this. The fact that Justice Souter's footnote is even remotely controversial is ludicrous. Exxon commissioned the research; Exxon funded the research; Exxon continued funding the research only when it said what they wanted it to say; legal representatives hired by Exxon were responsible for bringing the research before the Supreme Court. Exxon provided the idea, the means, and the conclusion. The only thing they did not do was conduct the research themselves. Therefore, the research is invalid. Period.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
i agree. ideally, the methods of research should be objective enough that the source of funding isn't able to make any difference in outcomes. and it sounds like that's what was done in the preliminary research, BUT then things went awry.
i don't understand what makes the controversy itself "ludicrous", though. Souter says he pretty much dismissed the research as invalid, which is good. the controversy is whether they truly dismissed it or not, right? this is difficult to determine, and thus, it's not surprising or "ludicrous" that it's controversial.
Looking at it again, the article cites three objections to Souter's footnote:
1) that Souter focused on financing at the expense of focusing on quality of the research;
2) that even in spite of Souter's footnote he used the research as evidence in forming his opinion; and
3) that the Court "mishandled the studies it cited with approval."
It's the first objection that I consider ludicrous. It is not a Supreme Court justice's job to go through the results of a research study and pick apart its methodology or its quality. The only obligation on the Supreme Court justice is to cite research they know is valid, if the case requires that research be cited. I think the funding trail is sufficient cause to dismiss the research as invalid evidence, at least for the purposes of the Court. Whether or not the research was actually dismissed, I can't say. But it should have been.
Post a Comment