Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s admission at a July Senate hearing raises troubling questions about accountability in judicial education. Kagan confirmed she had written the foreword for the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence without reading a chapter on climate change that was eventually removed because of objectionable biases – and has yet to read it.
Her foreword vouches for the manual as an objective resource for judges handling cases involving complex science, ranging from epidemiology to emerging technologies. Yet her high-profile endorsement of material that later required major corrections jeopardizes the judiciary’s credibility.
The fourth edition of the influential reference manual, used by thousands of federal judges, faced immediate pushback. The climate chapter was withdrawn in February following objections from state attorneys general citing imbalances and potential conflicts.
Sadly, remaining in the manual is a chapter that drifts into pseudoscience in describing the nature of science. Regrettably, also still intact is Kagan’s foreword attesting to the volume as a reliable aid grounded in impartiality.
The retained material with its skewed explanation of the scientific method is a noticeable pivot from earlier editions of the manual. They featured physicist David Goodstein’s concise discussion of empirical testing, falsifiable predictions, the primacy of reliable data, and other tenets of scientific inquiry.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member