Lehrer on Jurists as Evolutionary Engineers: Artificial Selection in Legal Doctrine

Ignacio Adrian Lehrer has published Jurists as Evolutionary Engineers: Artificial Selection in Legal Doctrine.

This study analyzes how legal scholars, judges, and codifiers function as evolutionary engineers who practice artificial selection on legal doctrines, accelerating legal evolution through conscious intervention. Drawing on Darwin's observations of artificial selection and Harari's analysis of religious interpreters as normative engineers, we document systematic mechanisms by which legal professionals consciously select, cultivate, and eliminate doctrinal variants. The research reveals four primary mechanisms: academic cultivation through scholarly networks, judicial breeding of precedential lines, systematic codification, and institutional elimination of dysfunctional variants. Unlike natural legal evolution operating through unconscious social pressures over centuries, artificial selection achieves comparable changes within decades through directed intervention. Case studies demonstrate successful artificial selection including elimination of "separate but equal" doctrine, integration of common law and civil law principles in mixed jurisdictions, and development of European contract law. Failed attempts illuminate factors necessary for successful doctrinal engineering. This analysis provides theoretical foundation for understanding how legal systems achieve rapid adaptation while maintaining institutional continuity, with implications for legal education, judicial administration, and international harmonization efforts.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Haack on The Art of Scientific Metaphors @MiamiLawSchool

Susan Haack, University of Miami School of Law, University of Miami Department of Philosophy, has published The Art of Scientific Metaphors at 75 Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 2049 (2019). Here is the abstract.

Metaphor has no place in science, some claim; no, others argue, metaphor is crucial to science. Science is a rational enterprise with its own distinctive logical structure; no, it isn’t essentially different from literature, equally a kind of world-making. There is a distinctive metaphorical kind of meaning; no, metaphorical utterances have only their literal meanings, in which they are just plain false. Conspicuous by its absence is the reasonable middle ground Haack will be mapping here. Metaphor is useful, but not essential, to scientific work; metaphors don’t have a special kind of meaning, but they do have a special pragmatic role; scientific work and the writing of fiction do have important things in common, but there are also significant differences between the two enterprises. Once we understand how science works (§1), and then how metaphors work (§2), we can articulate the similarities, and differences, between scientific metaphors and literary ones (§3).

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Suuberg on Buck v. Bell, American Eugenics, and the Bad Man Test: Putting Limits on Newgenics in the 21st Century @alessuube

Alessandra Suuberg, indepdendant scholar, has published Buck v. Bell, American Eugenics, and the Bad Man Test: Putting Limits on Newgenics in the 21st Century. Here is the abstract.

With its 1927 decision in Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court embraced the American eugenics program, which was then at its peak. An association with fascism and a discredited pseudoscience was one reason why the Buck case would later became infamous. Another reason was that, rather than resolving a true conflict, the case was seen as contrived: designed strategically to validate a particular Virginia law and ensure the success of the eugenics movement. Because the strategists were a close-knit group of elites and eugenics proponents, and the guinea pig at the center was poor and disadvantaged, the case provided a striking example of the way that a legal system intended to protect the most vulnerable members of society can instead be manipulated and used against them in the name of reform. Today, it is important to remember Buck and its legacy in order to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

Download the article froM SSRN at the link.

Call For Proposals: Conference on Literature, Law, and Psychoanalysis, 1890-1950, University of Sheffield, April 11-13, 2019

Literature, Law and Psychoanalysis, 1890-1950

A conference at the University of Sheffield, April 11-13, 2019

The twentieth-century was a period of worldwide literary experiment, of scientific developments and of worldwide conflict. These changes demanded a rethinking not merely of psychological subjectivity, but also of what it meant to be subject to the law and to punishment. This two-day conference aims to explore relationships between literature, law and psychoanalysis during the period 1890-1950, allowing productive mixing of canonical and popular literature and also encouraging interdisciplinary conversations between different fields of study.

The period examined by the conference included: developments in Freudian psychoanalysis and its branching in other directions; the founding of criminology; continuing campaigns and reforms around the death penalty; landmark modernist publications; the ‘Golden Age’ of detective fiction; and multiple sensational trials (Wilde, Crippen, Casement, Leopold and Loeb, to name but a few). Freud’s followers, like Theodor Reik and Hans Sachs, would publish work on criminal law and the death penalty; psychoanalysts were sought after as expert witnesses; novelists like Elizabeth Bowen would serve on a Royal Commission investigating capital punishment; while Gladys Mitchell invented the character of Beatrice Adela Lestrange Bradley as a literary detective-psychoanalyst.

We therefore hope to consider areas including literature’s connection with historical debates around crime and punishment; literature and authors on trial and/or on the ‘psychiatrist’s couch’;and literature’s effect on debates about human rights. The event is linked to and partly supported by an AHRC project on literature, psychoanalysis and the death penalty, but the aim of this conference is much wider. Interdisciplinary approaches, especially from fields such as psychoanalysis, philosophy, law or the visual arts, are particularly encouraged. We also welcome papers on international legal systems and texts. All responses are welcome and the scope of our interdisciplinary interests is flexible, with room in the planned programme for strands of work that might be more or less literary.


Possible topics might include:

psychoanalysis in the real or literary courtroom;
literary form and the insanity defence;
canonical authors as readers of crime fiction and vice versa;
censorship cases;
the influence of famous legal cases on literary productions or on psychoanalytic theory;
influences of criminology and criminal psychology on literature;
representations of new execution methods (for example, the gas chamber and the electric chair);
portrayals of restorative versus retributive justice;
literary responses to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
relationships between modernism and Critical Legal Studies (CLS).

Please send 250 word paper proposals or 300 word proposals for fully formed panels to Dr Katherine Ebury at llitlawpsy2019@gmail.com by 28th November 2018. 

See the website for more information: https://litlawpsy2019.wordpress.com/cfp/

Appleman on Deviancy, Disability, and Dependency: The Forgotten History of Eugenics and Mass Incarceration @lawandlitprof

Laura I. Appleman, Willamette University College of Law, is publishing Deviancy, Disability, and Dependency: The Forgotten History of Eugenics and Mass Incarceration in the Duke Law Journal. Here is the abstract.

Racism, harsh drug laws, and prosecutorial overreach have formed three widely-discussed explanations of the punitive carceral state. These three narratives, however, only partially explain where we are. Neglected in our discussion of mass incarceration is our largely-forgotten history of the long-term, wholesale institutionalization of the disabled. This form of mass detention, motivated by a continuing application of eugenics and persistent class-based discrimination, provides an important part of our history of imprisonment, shaping key contours of our current supersized correctional system. Only by fully exploring this forgotten narrative of long-term detention and isolation will policy makers be able to understand, diagnose, and solve the crisis of mass incarceration.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Conference on Quantum Theory, Law, and Ethics, St. Mary's University, April 13, 2018: Call For Papers @thomgiddens

Via @thomgiddens:

Quantum Law: An Interdisciplinary Examination of Quantum Theory, Law, and Ethics

To be hosted at St Mary’s University, in connection with the Centre for Law and Culture. Call for papers and other details of the project can be found here: https://quantumlaw2018.wordpress.com/call-for-papers/ 
Deadline for proposals is Friday 9 March 2018, with the conference taking place 13 April 2018. Contact: quantum.law@stmarys.ac.uk Conference overview and aims: Quantum theory, the study of the nature and behaviour of matter and energy on the atomic and subatomic level, has come to occupy a dominant position in theoretical physics. It is however increasingly important also as both the basis of new or potential technologies and as a broader idea outside of subatomic physics itself, as both an artefact of popular culture but also a means of explaining other complex phenomena. The need for quantum theory to engage directly with other areas is pressing for various reasons, both in order to prevent the misuse of its ideas in inappropriate ways, but also in order to consider how its models for understanding can be fruitfully applied to other areas of study. Legal and ethical theory is an obvious candidate for various reasons, yet this relationship has been almost entirely neglected. At the same time, the legal regulation of the application and use of quantum theory and technologies is on the verge of becoming a pressing regulatory concern of public policy given the novel regulatory dilemmas and ethical concerns which such technologies pose. This workshop proposes to create a unique and necessary environment where quantum theorists and scholars of law and legal and ethical theory, as well as any other interested parties, can discuss these matters in order to articulate ideas, problems and solutions in a manner which reflects the needs, ideas, limits and potential of all concerned parties. Conference themes and potential focus of contributions: Contributions on any element of the broad themes of the conference are welcome. We particularly welcome contributions might with a focus on the following themes: Quantum theory and legal theory In the field of legal and ethical theory, ideas from quantum mechanics are a potential source of inspiration and for models of understanding to characterise, map and resolve areas of tension within legal theory which seek to characterise and understand issues which overlap with and relate to the concerns of quantum theory in various ways. The expansion of ideas stemming from quantum theory into other areas has occurred in recent years in various ways, including the development of the fields of ‘quantum cognition’, ‘quantum biology’, ‘quantum fiction’, and quantum visions of social theory expressed in such notions as ‘quantum society’, as well as more ambitious projects to see quantum theory as a way of bridging the perceived divide between the natural and social sciences. Building on the successes of these burgeoning fields, and mindful of their perceived failures, this workshop will seek to examine the possibility that legal problems and phenomena can be better understood or re-evaluated through making use of ideas or models of understanding which stem from quantum theory. These might include but are not limited to: ·       Is there an equivalent ‘quantum’ level within law regarding micro-level decisions and adjudication which possesses different properties to that witnessed in macro-level understandings of doctrine or general principles? Can models from quantum theory help us understand this better?
·       Do legal systems possess similar or overlapping characteristics to those explained through quantum theory? Can legal systems and their operation be better understood by drawing upon these ideas? Such questions might include questions of unpredictability, indeterminism, simultaneously conflicting but equally valid legal interpretations, etc. Are judges ‘collapsing a wave function’ when they make a decision, for instance?
·       Are the core notions of the uncertainty principle and the observer effect equally applicable to law and its content? Do such questions alter notions of certainty within the law and its justness?
·       Do rival understandings of quantum theory, such as the multiverse theory, whether as scientific or pop culture concepts, change our core legal concepts of causation, or responsibility?
·       Do quantum models of probability explain questions of adjudication and allow for the better prediction of judicial outcomes? Can work on quantum cognition add to our understanding of legal decision making?
·       Can ideas from quantum theory be creatively drawn upon as the model for ethical or legal models in a way which improves or changes our understanding of questions of justice, law or morality, in the way, for instance, that popular understandings of evolutionary biology have done? Are there particular dangers in this regard?
·       Can quantum theory draw upon legal notions or methods, particularly methods in legal reasoning such as reasoning by analogy, to better understand the outer limits of the theoretical aspects of quantum mechanics?
 Legal, regulatory and ethical responses to a quantum world Similarly, the overlapping question of the legal regulation of the application of quantum theory within new and potential quantum technologies and the carrying out of research in quantum mechanics poses an exciting and important set of questions which require legal scholars and physicists, among others, to discuss the potential problems, goals and solutions. The uptake of new applications based on nanotechnology was greatly slowed by a lack of such discussion and consequent public and policy-maker fears induced by misunderstanding. Conversely the massive success of mobile communications technology was produced by rapid and early agreement global standards. The impending development of quantum technology poses a potentially novel set of problems for policy makers regarding the goals, methods and viability of any existing or future legal regulatory framework. Such discussions will allow the development of ideal models for regulation. This project also fits in with the European Commission’s ‘Better regulation for new technologies’ agenda, and can draw upon and inform the expertise of that project. Drawing on the expertise, requirements and goals of physicists working in the area of quantum theory and legal scholars and people engaged in public policy in the field of regulation will allow discussion of topics including the following: ·       What is the current regulatory framework for research in quantum theory and the development and use of quantum technologies?
·       What regulatory problems does the development of quantum technology pose? What are the ethical and risk distribution issues which must be confronted?
·       Does the current regulatory framework provide an appropriate basis for all relevant stakeholders?
·       How does the existing thinking on the regulation of new technologies apply to quantum theory and its technological application?
·       How do specific legal standards apply, such as the precautionary principle, to quantum technology? How should specific areas of law, such as IP law, trade law and the legal regulation of military use of technology apply to quantum technologies?
·       Are there deeper problems posed by quantum theory to legal regulation and its viability? Is the hyper-specialised nature of quantum theory and its application capable of regulation by a non-specialist? Is self-regulation desirable/necessary/inevitable?
·       What broader tensions regarding the legal regulation of science are brought to the fore by the question of quantum technology and how should they be resolved? How can the law regulate notions such as probability? How should the law best deal with uncertainty?
·       Who should be responsible for such regulatory frameworks, their articulation and their enforcement?
 See the website for more details: https://quantumlaw2018.wordpress.com/Contact: quantum.law@stmarys.ac.uk 

In Science Magazine's January 20, 2018 Issue: The Legacy of "Frankenstein" @sciencemagazine

Science Magazine devotes its January 2018 issue to Frankenstein. Included are several articles on the novel and its legacy:

Jon Cohen, How a Horror Story Haunts Science

David Shultz and Adolfo Arranz, Creating a Modern Monster

Kai Kupferschmidt, Taming the Monsters of Tomorrow

For more on the law, popular culture, and science of Frankenstein, here's a selected bibliography.

Josh Gilliland, Justice for Frankenstein's Monster (on the 1931 film)

Bridget M. Marshall, The Transatlantic Gothic Novel and the Law, 1790-1860 (Routledge, 2011).

Lee McAuley,  The Frankenstein Complex and Asimow's Three Laws

John R. Reed, Will and Fate in Frankenstein

Vaughn on Michael Crichton's View of Lawyers

ICYMI:

Lea B. Vaughn, University of Washington School of Law, has published A Few Inconvenient Truths About Michael Crichton’s State of Fear: Lawyers, Causes and Science at 20 Seton Hall Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law 40 (2010). Here is the abstract.

Although Crichton has lost the battle regarding global warming, his characterization of lawyers and law practice remains unchallenged. This article challenges his damning portrait of lawyers as know-nothing, self-aggrandizing manipulators of various social and environmental causes. A more nuanced examination of “cause lawyering” reveals that lawyers are not part of a vast conspiracy to grab power through the causes for which many work; in fact, the rules of professional responsibility as well as the structure of “cause lawyering” limit their power and influence. Regardless, lawyers are nonetheless vital, and generally principled, participants in the debates and causes that inform environmental (and other scientific) policy-making in a democratic society.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Some New Articles On Hypnosis and Law

A new issue of Notes and Records: The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science is available and includes many interesting articles, including Kaat Wils' From transnational to regional magnetic fevers: The making of a law on hypnotism in late nineteenth-century Belgium and Heather Wolffram's Crime and hypnosis in fin-de-siècle Germany: the Czynski case.


Complete table of contents here.

Swanson on Rubbing Elbows and Blowing Smoke: Gender, Class, and Science in the Nineteenth-Century Patent Office @KaraWSwanson

Kara W. Swanson, Northeastern University School of Law, has published Rubbing Elbows and Blowing Smoke: Gender, Class, and Science in the Nineteenth-Century Patent Office at 108 Isis: A Journal of Science 1 (2017). Here is the abstract.

The United States Patent Office of the 1850s offers a rare opportunity to analyze the early gendering of science. In its crowded rooms, would-be scientists shared a workplace with women earning equal pay for equal work. Scientific men worked as patent examiners, claiming this new occupation as scientific in opposition to those seeking to separate science and technology. At the same time, in an unprecedented and ultimately unsuccessful experiment, female clerks were hired to work alongside male clerks. This article examines the controversies surrounding these workers through the lens of manners and deportment. In the unique context of a workplace combining scientific men and working ladies, office behavior revealed the deep assumption that the emerging American scientist was male and middle class.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Hollywood and Concrete Poetry. And Aliens.

Via @davidgissen:

David Gissen, a professor at California College of the Arts, tweets that

Amy Adams writes inter-galactic, digital concrete poetry to communicate with aliens in the trailer for The Arrival.

Here's a link to the official trailer for the film. 

More about concrete poetry here.

But is she breaking the law to make contact with aliens?

Here's the text of the (repealed in 1991) U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (not the U. S. Code), dealing with exposure to extraterrestrial contaminants, which used to regulate U.S. citizen contact with extraterrestrial material (including alien life). It was put in place just before the successful Moon landing in 1969.

4 CFR Ch. 5 (1-1-91 Edition)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
PART 1211--EXTRATERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE Sec.
1211.100 Scope.
1211.101 Applicability.
1211.102 Definitions.
1211.103 Authority.
1211.105 Relationship with Departments of Health, Education, and
Welfare and Agriculture.
1211.106 Cooperation with States, territories and possessions.
1211.107 Court or other process.
1211.108 Violations. Authority: Secs. 203, 304, 72 Stat. 429, 433; 42 U.S.C. 2455, 2456,
2473; 18 U.S.C. 799; Art. IX, TIAS 6347 (18 UST 2416). Source: 34 FR 11975, July 16, 1969, unless otherwise noted. S1211.100 Scope.
This part establishes:
(a) NASA policy, responsibility and authority to guard the Earth
against any harmful contamination or adverse changes in its environment
resulting from personnel, spacecraft and other property returning to the
Earth after landing on or coming within the atmospheric envelope of a
celestial body; and
(b) Security requirements, restrictions and safeguards that are
necessary in the interest of the national security. S1211.101 Applicability.
The provisions of this part apply to all NASA manned and unmanned
space missions which land on or come within the atmospheric envelope of a
celestial body and return to Earth. S1211.102 Definitions.
(a) _NASA_ and the _Administrator_ mean, respectively the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration or his authorized
representative (see S1204.509 of this chapter).
(b) _Extraterrestrially exposed_ means the state or condition of any
person, property, animal or other form of life or matter whatever, who or
which has:
(1) Touched directly or come within the atmospheric envelope of any
other celestial body; or
(2) Touched directly or been in close proximity to (or been exposed
indirectly to) any person, property, animal or other form of life or
matter who or which has been extraterrestrially exposed by virtue of
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
For example, if person or thing "A" touches the surface
of the moon, and on "A's" return to Earth, "B" touches
"A" and subsequently, "C" touches "B", all of these--
"A" through "C" inclusive--would be extraterrestrially
exposed ("A" and "B" directly; "C" indirectly).
(c) _Quarantine_ means the detention, examination and decontamination
of any person, property, animal or other form of life or matter whatever
that is extraterrestrially exposed, and includes the apprehension or
seizure of such person, property, animal or other form of life or matter
whatever.
(d) _Quarantine period_ means a period of consecutive calendar days
as may be established in accordance with S1211.104(a).
(e) _United States_ means the 50 States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa
and any other territory or possession of the United States, and in a
territorial sense all places and waters subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States. S1211.103 Authority.
(a) Sections 203 and 204 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of
1958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2474, 2455 and 2456).
(b) 18 U.S.C. 799.
(c) Article IX, Outer Space Treaty, TIAS 6347 (18UST 2416).
(d) NASA Management Instructions 1052.90 and 8020.13. S1211.104 Policy.
(a) _Administrative actions._ The Administrator or his designee as
authorized by S1204.509 of this chapter shall in his discretion:
(1) Determine the beginning and duration of a quarantine period with
respect to any space mission; the quarantine period as it applies to
various life forms will be announced.
(2) Designate in writing quarantine officers to exercise quarantine
authority.
(3) Determine that a particular person, property, animal or other
form of life or matter whatever is extraterrestrially exposed and
quarantine such person, property, animal or other form of life or matter
whatever. The quarantine may be based only on a determination, with or
without the benefit of a hearing, that there is probable cause to believe
that such person, property, animal or other form of life or matter
whatever is extraterrestrially exposed.
(4) Determine within the United States or within vessels or vehicles
of the United States the place, boundaries, and rules of operation of
necessary quarantine stations.
(5) Provide for guard services by contract or otherwise, as may be
necessary, to maintain security and inviolability of quarantine stations
and quarantined persons, property, animals, or other form of life or
matter whatever.
(6) Provide for the subsistence, health, and welfare of persons
quarantined under the provisions of this part.
(7) Hold such hearings at such times, in such a manner and for such
purposes as may be desirable or necessary under this part, including
hearings for the purpose of creating a record for use in making any
determination under this part or for the purpose of reviewing any such
determination.
(8) Cooperate with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
and the Department of Agriculture in accordance with the provisions of
S1211.105.
(9) Take such other actions as may be prudent or necessary and which
are consistent with this part.
(b) _Quarantine._ (1) During any period of announced quarantine, the
property within the posted perimeter of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory at
the Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Tex., is designated as the NASA
Lunar Receiving Laboratory Quarantine Station.
(2) Other quarantine stations may be established if determined
necessary as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(3) During any period of announced quarantine, no person shall enter
or depart from the limits of any quarantine station without permission of
the cognizant NASA quarantine officer. During such period, the posted
perimeter of a quarantine station shall be secured by armed guard.
(4) Any person who enters the limits of any quarantine station during
the quarantine period shall be deemed to have consented to the quarantine
of his person if it is determined that he is or has become
extraterrestrially exposed.
(5) At the earliest practicable time, each person who is quarantined
by NASA shall be given a reasonable opportunity to communicate by
telephone with legal counsel or other persons of his choice. S1211.105 Relationship with Departments of Health, Education and
Welfare and Agriculture.
(a) If either the Department of Health, Education and Welfare or the
Department of Agriculture exercises its authority to quarantine an
extraterrestrially exposed person, property, animal or other form of life
or matter whatever, NASA will, except as provided in paragraph (c) of
this section, not exercise the authority to quarantine that same person,
property, animal, or other form of life or matter whatever. In such
cases, NASA will offer to these departments the use of the Lunar
Receiving Laboratory Quarantine Station and such other service,
equipment, personnel, and facilities as may be necessary to ensure an
effective quarantine.
(b) If neither the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare or
the Department of Agriculture exercises its quarantine authority. NASA
shall exercise the authority to quarantine and extraterrestrially exposed
person, property, animal, or other form of life or matter whatever. In
such cases, NASA will inform these departments of such quarantine action
and, in addition, may request the use of such service, equipment,
personnel and facilities of other Federal departments and agencies as may
be necessary to ensure an effective quarantine.
(c) NASA shall quarantine NASA astronauts and other NASA personnel
as determined necessary and all NASA property involved in any space
mission. S1211.106 Cooperation with States, territories, and possessions.
(a) Actions taken in accordance with the provisions of this part
shall be exercised in cooperation with the applicable authority of any
State, territory, possession or any political subdivision thereof. S1211.107 Court or other process.
(a) NASA officers and employees are prohibited from discharging from
the limits of a quarantine station any quarantined person, property,
animal or other form of life or matter whatever during order or other
request, order or demand an announced quarantine period in compliance
with subpoena, show cause of any court or other authority without the
prior approval of the General Counsel and the Administrator.
(b) Where approval to discharge a quarantined person, property,
animal, or other form of life or matter whatever in compliance with such
a request, order or demand of any court or other authority is not given,
the person to whom it is directed shall, if possible, appear in court or
before the other authority and respectfully state his inability to
comply, relying for his action upon this S1211.107. S1211.108 Violations.
Whoever willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to
violate any provision of this part or any regulation or order issued
under t his part or who enters or departs from the limits of any
quarantine station in disregard of the quarantine rules or regulations
or without permission of the NASA quarantine officer shall be fined not
more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both (18 U.S.C.
799).

Boldly go.

Thaler @SFriedScientist on Doing Science and Writing Science Fiction

Andrew Thaler, the CEO of Blackbeard Biologic, a scientic consulting firm, writes here about the useful intellectual distractions (never mind the pleasures) of writing "hard" science fiction. Nice to see a STEM PhD (Duke, in Marine Sciences and Conservation) discussing the merits of the humanities.

James Joyce's Engagement With Nature In "Finnegans Wake"

Alison Lacivita, University of Southern Mississippi, has published The Ecology of Finnegans Wake (University Press of Florida, 2015) ( Florida James Joyce Series). Here is a description of the contents from the publisher's website.

In this book--one of the first ecocritical explorations of both Irish literature and modernism--Alison Lacivita defies the popular view of James Joyce as a thoroughly urban writer by bringing to light his consistent engagement with nature. Using genetic criticism to investigate Joyce's source texts, notebooks, and proofs, Lacivita shows how Joyce developed ecological themes in Finnegans Wake over successive drafts. Making apparent a love of growing things and a lively connection with the natural world across his texts, Lacivita's approach reveals Joyce's keen attention to the Irish landscape, meteorology, urban planning, Dublin's ecology, the exploitation of nature, and fertility and reproduction. Lacivita unearths a vital quality of Joyce's work that has largely gone undetected, decisively aligning ecocriticism with both modernism and Irish studies. 

 

Another Look at Daubert

Barbara P. Billauer, Institute of World Politics & Foundation for Law and Science Centers, Inc., has published Daubert Debunked: A History of Legal Retrogression and the Need to Redefine 'Science' in Law. Here is the abstract.

With ‘novel’ scientific discoveries accelerating at an unrelenting pace, the need for accessible and implementable standards for evaluating the legal admissibility of scientific evidence becomes more and more crucial. As science changes, legal standards for evaluating ‘novel’ science must be plastic enough to respond to fast-moving changes. This, ostensibly, was the Daubert objective. Since it was decided in 1993, however, Daubert’s impact has been hotly contested – with plaintiffs and defendants each claiming the decision unfairly favors the other side. New approaches are constantly suggested to deal with the perceived impact, although there is no uniform consensus of exactly what that impact is. Without accurate and demonstrable evidence of Daubert’s effect, however, the current ad hoc approach of suggesting new gatekeeping methods – is at best blind, and at worst, a partisan attempt to manipulate judicial decision-making. This article reports on a retrospective review of data regarding the impact of Daubert on admissibility of scientific evidence, for the first time – via a simple statistical perspective. This method confirms other assessments (using different methodologies) that (allowing for short-term corrections post-Daubert), there is no difference in outcome whether Frye or Daubert tests are used. Given that entirely different standards were used in both cases – yet yield similar results – one must acknowledge the possibility that both tests are ‘scientifically’ flawed. Further, empirical evidence and academic research agree that judges now substitute their own mechanisms for evaluating scientific evidence, in some cases applying neither Daubert nor the pre-existing Frye test. The reasons are unclear – perhaps due to an instinctual aversion to the muddied or flawed standards enunciated in both. Nevertheless, it does appear that judges are uncomfortable understanding several Daubert tests, including the ‘falsification’ criterion, which is the foundation stone of the Daubert analysis. Via re-analysis of the Rand study of 2001 which examined effects of Daubert, this research further highlights the scientific/mathematical illiteracy of the current legal community (especially, as I demonstrate, compared to judges pre-Frye). This situation presents a major obstacle for devising a workable method for judicial gatekeeping of scientific evidence. Ultimately, however, lawyers and scientists must first agree what ‘science’ is before better methods of evaluating proffered evidence can be devised. It is suggested that lawyers turn to scientists who developed the scientific method as it applies to the science of the courtroom: biology, chemistry and simple physics to enlighten themselves – substituting these approaches for the flawed and faulty premises advocated by Daubert and Frye.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

The CSI Syndrome

Forensics shows continue to be popular; a new one, CSI Cyber,  recently made its debut. Most  forensics experts will tell us that what happens on these shows bears little resemblance to reality, and yet lay audiences enjoy them enormously. What is the attraction?

Many forensics experts point out that viewers eagerly watch such shows and then expect that if they become jurors, lawyers will inevitably present them with forensic evidence as part, or all, of any case, particularly a criminal case, that they are then asked to judge. After all, these jurors reason, they've seen that pattern on tv. Lawyers and expert witnesses, on the other hand, say that they cannot present jurors with forensic evidence in every case. It doesn't exist for many cases. To the dismay of prosecutors, jurors may be less likely to convict if forensic evidence is minimal or lacking. The evidence that does exist is the usual mundane sort of evidence--eyewitness testimony, timelines, and documents. Boring stuff, really, but the bread and butter of many cases. Jurors, however, raised over the past 20 or 30 years on Forensic Files, CSI, NCIS, and similar shows, dating back to Quincy, ME, and even to early legal dramas (Perry Mason made good use of forensics to free his clients) expect forensic fireworks. They may prefer such evidence to eyewitness testimony, which can be initially exciting perhaps, but which becomes the target of terrier-like attacks from lawyers on opposing sides until the jury is completely bewildered, and must spend an inordinate amount of time weighing in the jury room. They may prefer forensic evidence which looks solid and uncompromising to circumstantial evidence that they will find difficult to evaluate. Forensic evidence certainly may seem a more likely peg to hang a verdict on than the uncertainty of much of what goes on in the courtroom, and in the legal system. The legal system itself, they know from experience and from popular culture, is a fickle animal.Why do jurors seem to be demanding?

What jurors want, I would suggest, is what they think is the certainty of forensic science. Statistics sound solid and verifiable. They sound like something measurable, something that jurors can hold onto and weigh when considering a verdict. Because the rules of evidence and the opposing attorneys' ability to shape the legal narrative might very well disguise a forensic expert's ability to explain to the jury just what the actual forensic data means, the jury might well misunderstand what it should infer from that data. Thus, the forensic science testimony that a jury hears in the court can be its proxy for certainty, bolstered by the certainty of the outcomes jury members routinely see in television episodes. Jurors can run from the uncertainty of circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony  and the unpleasant feeling that something is going on behind the scenes that they know nothing about, and take refuge in forensic science. Science doesn't lie (although people do, and can manipulate science, but jurors may be unaware of that). Forensic science returns us to the early promise of science and technology generally, the better life that we thought we could count on before August 1945, when the world both ended and began again.

If, then, CSI "affects" jurors, it does so for some good reasons, and very understandably. Jurors are rational human beings, and they look for certainty. Science looks certain, even if those of us who understand a little bit more of it than the average person know that it isn't all that "certain." Because they take their duties seriously, jurors also want to do a good job. If accepting forensic science evidence offers them a way to come to the appropriate verdict with some semblance of certainty, as opposed to accepting eyewitness testimony, for example, which they know (having watched other shows on TV as well as read newspaper articles about exonerations  through DNA after convictions through eyewitness testimony)  could be mistaken, or timelines, which can be questionable, then jurors could understandably opt for the science. Fascination with forensic science or the CSI Complex is really not so odd, not so irrational. When it enters the real life courtroom, however, it enters through the jurors' tv prism, and as a result it has much more power than it should.

Call For Proposals: Second Biennial Conference on Teaching Globalization, Boston University, June 27, 2015

Call for Proposals:

June 27th, 2015 at the Boston University Center for Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning. DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS EXTENDED TO APRIL 10, 2015.

Keynote Address by Paul Robbins, director of the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

The second biennial conference on Teaching Globalization at Boston University will explore the convergence of science and the humanities as we seek to understand the impact of current ecological and technological trends on the planet and on humanity itself. We invite presentations of interdisciplinary research and pedagogy addressing what has variously been termed the “end of Nature” and the “Anthropocene.”

Featured topics will include, but will not be limited to, the following: catastrophic climate change, mass extinctions, geoengineering, synthetic biology, AI, and transhumanism. We seek original papers that integrate topics from science and the humanities in order to confront those aspects of globalization that have compelled scholars to rethink their conceptions of both “nature” and “human nature” in the twenty-first century. Papers presented at this conference will be considered for publication in a forthcoming volume published by Lexington Books (Rowman & Littlefield) as part of an ongoing series on Ecocritical Theory and Practice edited by Douglas Vakoch.

Please send a curriculum vitae and a 200 to 250 word paper proposal by April 3 to Richard Samuel Deese, Center for Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning at Boston University: rsdeese@bu.edu

Some "Law and" From the Biological Sciences

Hendrik Gommer, CIS Law, has published Integrating the Disciplines of Law and Biology: Dealing with Clashing Paradigms. Here is the abstract.

This article considers the difficulties that a researcher on the border of normative and explanatory sciences may encounter. The article begins with an introduction to the field at stake, namely the integration of law and biology. It appears that this kind of interdisciplinary research is not only a challenge for the researcher himself, but also for his readers. Concepts are not understood, assumptions differ, ‘peers’ are not really peers, and the new paradigm cannot be proven. Even though some scholars might enjoy loneliness, their academic isolation may actually hamper the spreading of their ideas. Science is not only about having the best ideas, but also about having peers. Without peers, achieving a breakthrough can prove to be very difficult. This is sad news for interdisciplinary researchers, but also seems dire news for science as a whole. Major scientific breakthroughs will be significantly delayed. On the other hand, cooperative communities need stability and cannot reward every innovative new idea that has the potential to become a new paradigm.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

A look at the "Law and" fields on the other side of the two cultures divide.  

Friendship, Imperial Violence, and the Law of Nations

Alecia Simmonds, University of Technology< Sydney, Faculty of Law, has published Friendship, Imperial Violence and the Law of Nations: The Case of Late-Eighteenth Century British Oceania in volume 42 of the Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (2014). Here is the abstract. 

This article examines the interrelationship of friendship and violence in European juristic traditions and in British scientific voyaging in Oceania. Drawing upon Roman texts and natural law treatises, it shows how friendship, meaning hospitality and trade, appeared as a right asserted by imperial nations, often with the backing of force. Moving from jurisprudence to imperial practice, this paper examines the coercive elements of cross­-cultural friendship in eighteenth­ century British expansion into Oceania. It suggests that it was in the breach more than the observance that discourses of friendship came to the fore, specifically in resistance to first contact and in accusations of theft. Seen to be motivated by either violent or avaricious passions, theft and native resistance tore the bonds of human sociability asunder. I argue that the significance of friendship was twofold. First, in a context of inter­imperial rivalry, friendship signified native consent in claims of possession over land and thus ensured conformity to legal norms. Second, it promised a system of order governed by norms of affective restraint that could sublimate the passions of natives, voyagers and nations.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Pi Day!

It's Pi Day! March 13 (3/14) is celebrated around the world as the day for venerating the mathematical ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference. Remember that nugget from your early education? It's (sort of) 3.14 (if you want to calculate it yourself, see some methods here). While various organizations suggest ways to honor the irrational number, including baking Pi pies, there is at least one law and humanities link to Pi.

Now, I have heard at least two different stories purporting to be the truth here (some suggesting that the Indiana legislature was involved and some that it was the Kentucky legislature that tried to redefine the value of Pi). Here's what I have tracked down. In 1897, an Indiana physician and amateur (really amateur) mathetician named Edward J. Goodwin thought he had succeeded in squaring the circle and also demonstrated that the value of Pi was actually effectively 3.2. Now, squaring the circle is a mathematical impossibility, as Ferdinand von Lindemann showed in 1882. However, Dr. Goodwin thought he had done it, and copyrighted his proof. Further, he really wanted children to be educated to understand his great discovery (despite his desire to collect royalties on his proof), so he decided that he would ask the state of Indiana to accept the truth of his discovery. Thus, the state wouldn't have to pay royalties, which would probably have been prohibitive.

He got the attention of some Indiana legislators who introduced House Bill 246 (the Indiana Pi Bill)  during the 1897 session. Then the fun began. The debate on the floor over the advisibility of accepting a set value for Pi got national attention. It also caught the attention of a math professor, Clarence Abiathar Waldo, at Purdue University, who proceeded to educate some of the members of the Indiana Senate on the basics of math, which they seemed to have forgotten. They were successful in putting off a vote on the bill, enthusiasm for it faded away, and as a result, Pi in Indiana does not have an official value of 3.2.

More here from Mental Floss Magazine, here from a personal page by Mark Brader at the University of Michigan.  Read the text of the bill here. 

Richard III Identified

From CNN: Scientists working on the bones found in a parking lot ("car park" in British parlance), the site of an archaelogical excavation, have announced that they are now certain that the bones are those of Richard III, the last Plantagenet king of England. The investigators obtained mitochrondrial DNA from a descendant of Anne Plantagenet, one of Richard's sisters, and matched it to DNA obtained from the bones. Once the scientists are finished with their research, Richard will be reburied at Leicester Cathedral. More here from the Guardian.