Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 44 (1):205-215 (2016)
AbstractThe rapid advancement from single-gene testing to whole genome sequencing has significantly broadened the type and amount of information available to researchers, physicians, patients, and the public in general. Much debate has ensued about whether genomic test results should be reported to research participants, patients and consumers, and at what stage we can be sure that existing evidence justifies their use in clinical settings. Courts and judges evaluating the utility of these results will not be immune to this uncertainty. As scholars increasingly explore the duty of care standards related to reporting genomic test results, it is timely to provide a framework for understanding how uncertainty about genetic and genomic tests influences evidentiary considerations in the court room. Here, we explore the subtleties and nuances of interpreting genetic data in an environment of substantial discord related to the value that individuals should place on genetic and genomic tests. In conjunction, we discuss the roles courts should play in qualifying experts, expert testimony, and genetic and genomic tests given the intricate and complex nature of genetic and genomic information.
Similar books and articles
In Pursuit of an Expert Identity: A Case Study of Experts in the Historical Courtroom. [REVIEW]Krisda Chaemsaithong - 2011 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 24 (4):471-490.
Experts, Teachers and Their Epistemic Roles in Normative and Non-Normative Domains.Tobias Steinig - 2012 - Analyse & Kritik 34 (2):251-274.
Understanding and Evaluating Expert Testimony in the Law.David Joshua Strauss - 2004 - Dissertation, University of California, Riverside
Idealizing Science and Demonizing Experts: An Intellectual History of Expert Evidence.Jennifer Mnookin - manuscript
Authenticating Expertise: Philosophical and Legal Issues.Jason Borenstein - 2002 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 16 (1):85-102.
The Propriety of Expert Ethics Testimony in The Courtroom.Taiwo A. Oriola - 2006 - Journal of Philosophy, Science and Law 6:1-25.
Expert Testimony and Epistemological Free-Riding: The Mmr Controversy.Stephen John - 2011 - Philosophical Quarterly 61 (244):496-517.
Character and Knowledge: Learning From the Speech of Experts. [REVIEW]Christopher W. Tindale - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):341-353.
How Many Interpreters Does It Take to Interpret the Testimony of an Expert Witness? A Case Study of Interpreter-Mediated Expert Witness Examination.Jieun Lee - 2015 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 28 (1):189-208.
Expert Statistical Testimony and Epidemiological Evidence: The Toxic Effects of Lead Exposure on Children.Richard Scheines - unknown
The Standard of Care in Medical Negligence—Moving on From Bolam?Harvey Teff - 1998 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18 (3):473-484.
Expert Opinion and Second‐Hand Knowledge.Matthew A. Benton - 2016 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 92 (2):492-508.
Institutional Constraints on the Ethics of Expert Testimony.Bruce Sales & Leonore Simon - 1993 - Ethics and Behavior 3 (3 & 4):231 – 249.
The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in the English Courtroom.Tal Golan - 1999 - Science in Context 12 (1):7-32.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads