Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:23:42.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An infrastructural account of scientific objectivity for legal contexts and bloodstain pattern analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2022

W. John Koolage ,
Lauren M. Williams  and
Morgen L. Barroso
W. John Koolage*
Affiliation:
Eastern Michigan University
Lauren M. Williams
Affiliation:
Eastern Michigan University
Morgen L. Barroso
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
*
*Corresponding author. Email: wkoolage@emich.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

In the United States, scientific knowledge is brought before the courts by way of testimony – the testimony of scientific experts. We argue that this expertise is best understood first as related to the quality of the underlying science and then in terms of who delivers it. Bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA), a contemporary forensic science, serves as the vaulting point for our exploration of objectivity as a metric for the quality of a science in judicial contexts. We argue that BPA fails to meet the minimal standard set by Helen Longino’s social-procedural account of objectivity (1990, 2002). In light of some pressing issues for social-procedural accounts, we offer an infrastructural account of objectivity. This account offers what amounts to a friendly amendment to Longino’s account and adds to the ways in which we might analyze social-procedural objectivity. Finally, we address an issue that is pressing in the legal context: given that scientific knowledge is delivered by individuals, not communities, at least in U.S. courts, we (may) need a way to evaluate individual scientific and epistemic agents. We suggest a means for making this evaluation that is derived from our infrastructural account of objectivity.

Keywords

Bloodstain Pattern AnalysisScientific ObjectivitySocial Procedural ObjectivityDemocratization of ScienceExpertiseInfrastructuresLegal TestimonyIntellectual Authority
Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 101 - 119
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beety, Valena E. 2016. “Cops in Lab Coats and Forensics in the Courtroom.” Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 13:543–65.Google Scholar
Bowker, Geoffry C. and Star, Lorraine. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Burch, Matthew and Furman, Katherine. 2019. “Objectivity in Science and Law: A Shared Rescue Strategy.” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 64:60–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colloff, Pamela. 2018. “Blood Will Tell, Part I.” https://features.propublica.org/blood-spatter/mickey-bryan-murder-blood-spatter-forensic-evidence/ (last accessed April 18, 2022).Google Scholar
Cooley, Craig M. and Oberfield, Gabriel S.. 2007. “Increasing Forensic Evidence’s Reliability and Minimizing Wrongful Convictions: Applying Daubert Isn’t the Only Problem.” Tulsa Law Review 43:285.Google Scholar
Currie, Adrian. 2018. Rock, Bone, and Ruin. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine and Galison, Peter. 2007. Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2004. “The Irreducible Complexity of Objectivity.” Synthese 138:453–473.Google Scholar
Eigi, Jaana. 2017. “Different Motivations, Similar Proposals: Objectivity in Scientific Community and Democratic Science Policy.” Synthese 194:4657–4669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eigi, Jaana. 2019. “How to Think about Shared Norms and Pluralism without Circularity: A Reply to Anna Leuschner.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 75:51–56.Google ScholarPubMed
Edwards, Paul N., Jackson, Steven J., Bowker, Geoffrey C., Knobel, Cory P.. 2007. “Understanding infrastructure: Dynamics, tensions, and design.” Report, History and Theory of Infrastructure: Lessons for New Scientific Cyberinfrastructure workshop, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Gianelli, Paul C. 2012. “The 2009 NAS Forensic Science Report: A Literature Review.” Faculty Publications 48 (2):378–93.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 2015. “Let’s Not Talk About Objectivity.” In Objectivity in Science, edited by Padovani, Flavia, Richardson, Alan, and Jonathan, Y. Tsou, 19–33. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Hicks, Daniel. 2011. “Is Longino’s Conception of Objectivity Feminist?” Hypatia 26 (2): 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill Collins, Patricia. 1986. “Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought.” Social Problems 33:14–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Stuart H. 1999. Scientific and Legal Applications of Bloodstain Pattern Interpretation. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
James, StuartH. and Eckert, William G.. 1999. Interpretation of Bloodstain Evidence at Crime Scenes. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Jukola, Saana. 2016. “The Commercialization of Research and the Quest for Objectivity of Science.” Foundations of Science. 21:89–103.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2002. “The Third Way: Reflections on Helen Longino’s The Fate of Knowledge.” Philosophy of Science 69 (4):549–559.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2011. Science in a Democratic Society. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Koskinen, Inkeri. 2017. “Where is the Epistemic Community? On Democratization of Science and Social Accounts of Objectivity.” Synthese 194:4671–4686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, Inkeri. 2018. “Defending a Risk Account of Scientific Objectivity.” The British Journal of Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leuschner, Anna. 2012. “Pluralism and Objectivity: Exposing and Breaking a Circle.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 43:191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge. Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meckfessel Taylor, K.C., Elisabet Dirkx, Mariette, McIntosh, William and Tucker Carrington, W.. 2013. CSI Mississippi: The Cautionary Tale of Mississippi’s Medico-Legal History. Available at SSRN 2269446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. 2009. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1993. “Epistemological Communities.” In Feminist Epistemologies, edited by Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth, 121–159. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Peschard, Isabelle. 2007. “Participation of the Public in Science: Towards a New Kind of Scientific Practice.” Human Affairs 17:38–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poznic, Michael. 2016. “Modeling Organs with Organs on Chips: Scientific Representation and Engineering Design as Modeling Relations.” Philosophy & Technology 29 (4): 357–371.Google Scholar
Procter, Robert. 1991. Value-Free Science?: Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Risinger, D. Michael. 2018. “The Five Functions of Forensic Science and the Validation Issues They Raise: A Piece to Incite Discussion on Validation.” Seton Hall Law Review 48:719–32.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott, and Hylton, Peter. 2011. “Quine.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 74:237–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Leora. 2018. “How a Dubious Forensic Science Spread Like a Virus.” https://features.propublica.org/blood-spatter-analysis/herbert-macdonell-forensic-evidence-judges-and-courts/ (last accessed April 18, 2022).Google Scholar
Stevens, Charles. 1995. The Six Core Theories of Modern Physics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Star, Susan Leigh, and Ruhleder, Karen. 1996. “Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces.” Information Systems Research 7 (1): 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, Elisa K., and Glantz, Stanton A.. 2007. “Tobacco Industry Efforts Undermining Evidence Linking Secondhand Smoke with Cardiovascular Disease.” Circulation 116 (16): 1845–1854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wylie, Alison. 2015. “A Plurality of Pluralisms: Collaborative Practice in Archaeology.” In Objectivity in Science, edited by Padovani, Flavia, Richardson, Alan, and Jonathan, Y. Tsou, 19–33. New York: Springer.Google Scholar