英文摘要 |
Toxic tort litigation, including pollution, occupational hazard, and product liability disputes, has long been one of the norm-setting mechanisms regulating technology in society since the Industrial Revolution. Often through litigation and litigation-generated scientific and social debates, issues of potential hazards of industrial procedures and products become known and addressed. In Taiwan, the ongoing RCA cancer litigation is one of the very rare science-intensive toxic tort cases to date. The Taiwanese court has few precedences to follow regarding handling of scientific expert testimonies. In the U.S. courts, however, a series of heated debates on such issues have been ongoing since the 1993 Supreme Court ruling of Daubert v. Merrell Dow. The so-called ’Daubert Standard’ produced through three consecutive rulings have since been a focus of a multifaceted debate involving actors in a myriad of fields and positions. The Daubert Standard stipulates that the trial judge should act as ’gatekeeper’ to ensure only relevant and reliable expert witness and testimonies reach the court, so that the jury who represents the general public will not be misled by ’junk science.’ Application of the Daubert Standard has resulted in drastic reduction of toxic tort cases. It is acclaimed by the industry and some lawyers, but widely and fiercely criticized by many scientists, philosophers, and other professionals. This article examines the background, context, and preliminary implications of the rise of Daubert Standard as a case of ’’boundary work,’ and introduces critiques from English-language SIS and philosophical scholarship. Alternative causality standards are discussed in comparison to Daubert, such as the ’epidemiological principles’ used in Japanese pollution trials and the ’precautionary principles’ used in recent EU industrial chemical regulations. Finally, this article argues that science-intensive litigations in Taiwan such as the RCA hold strategic importance both for SIS research and for wider understanding of science and society. |