BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE BAR: A RESPONSE TO THE GROWING DIVIDE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT

摘要

The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Daubert dramatically changed the role of trial judges in determining the admissibility of scientific evidence. Once passive recipients of scientific data, trial judges must now act as "gatekeepers" to admit reliable science and to screen out "junk science." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer emphasized the point further, declaring that judges must do much more than simply reject specious science; they must "aim for decisions that, roughly speaking, approximately reflect the scientific 'state of the art."' The increased responsibility of trial courts to determine the admissibil-ity of scientific evidence comes as issues of biotechnology are beginning to find their way into the courtroom. This Article has attempted to demonstrate that three areas of biotechnology in particular—DNA forensics, genetic engineering, and genetic privacy—will soon challenge the scientific knowledge of every judicial system in the world. As one scholar predicts, "it will not be long before judges confront issues involving genetics on a regular basis within their courts."