The concept of “junk science” is widely believed to account for a myriad of problems with interactions between law and science. It is regularly blamed for precipitating an ongoing legal “crisis” resulting in longer trials, more expensive litigation, and inconsistent, irrational judgments. The alleged prevalence of junk science is used as evidence for the failure of the judiciary and the public to comprehend science.
The authors of Trashing “Junk Science” question the validity of the “junk science” model. They hold that many of the assumptions upon which this model is founded are flawed, and provide rationales for why we should reject the concept of junk science. Finally, they contend that the junk science model is a flexible, politically charged framework that should be rejected if a more sophisticated discussion of law-science interactions—indeed, science, technology, and society generally—is to be achieved.