To: Michael Brown
From: Katherine Midkiff
Subject: Woburn, MA Analysis
Date: June 3, 2016
Introduction
The following consists of an analysis of how it can be challenging to ensure that conflicts are resolved along with the truth being found when a scientific issue is brought to the courtroom. The case study of the “Woburn Toxic Trial” will be referenced in this analysis to highlight the types of conflicts that can come about when science is debated in a legal scenario. The analysis will highlight the role that an “expert witness” plays in such a scenario, in particular a hydrologist. These guidelines were set by Michael Brown upon request of this analysis. The “Woburn Toxic Trial” was initiated by several families who lived in Woburn, Massachusetts and that believed that the two companies W.R. Grace & Co. and Beatrice Foods, Inc. were responsible for their children being diagnosed with childhood leukemia and other health issues (“Overarching,” 2009). The accusation was that the two companies were not disposing of chemicals properly which led to wells G & H and drinking water to be contaminated with the chemicals (“Overarching,” 2009). Over a period of drinking the contaminated water the families believe this led to their children developing the health problems (“Overarching,” 2009). This accusation led to a trial …show more content…
These conflicting opinions arose from different models developed by the experts to analyze the data and develop predictions of the groundwater system (Bair, 2001). It is not only the bias of the expert presenting the model that may provide altered data but the data used in the model, if it is incomplete then any results produced by the model will be even more flawed than it already is (Bair,
From: Katherine Midkiff
Subject: Woburn, MA Analysis
Date: June 3, 2016
Introduction
The following consists of an analysis of how it can be challenging to ensure that conflicts are resolved along with the truth being found when a scientific issue is brought to the courtroom. The case study of the “Woburn Toxic Trial” will be referenced in this analysis to highlight the types of conflicts that can come about when science is debated in a legal scenario. The analysis will highlight the role that an “expert witness” plays in such a scenario, in particular a hydrologist. These guidelines were set by Michael Brown upon request of this analysis. The “Woburn Toxic Trial” was initiated by several families who lived in Woburn, Massachusetts and that believed that the two companies W.R. Grace & Co. and Beatrice Foods, Inc. were responsible for their children being diagnosed with childhood leukemia and other health issues (“Overarching,” 2009). The accusation was that the two companies were not disposing of chemicals properly which led to wells G & H and drinking water to be contaminated with the chemicals (“Overarching,” 2009). Over a period of drinking the contaminated water the families believe this led to their children developing the health problems (“Overarching,” 2009). This accusation led to a trial …show more content…
These conflicting opinions arose from different models developed by the experts to analyze the data and develop predictions of the groundwater system (Bair, 2001). It is not only the bias of the expert presenting the model that may provide altered data but the data used in the model, if it is incomplete then any results produced by the model will be even more flawed than it already is (Bair,