司法正義與科學事實如何交會？從Daubert爭議看法律、科學與社會

How Does Legal Justice Meet Scientific Fact? A View on Law, Science and Society through the 〞Daubert〞 Controversy

10.6464/TJSSTM.201104.0017

陳信行(Hsin-Hsing Chen)

毒物侵權訴訟 ； 科學因果關係 ； 證據標準 ； 專家證人 ； toxic tort ； scientific causality ； rules of evidence ； expert testimony

科技醫療與社會

12期（2011 / 04 / 01）

17 - 60

繁體中文

包括公害、職業病與產品責任等課題的「毒物侵權訴訟」（toxic tort litigation），從工業革命以來，就時常成為關於工業製程與產品對不同人群的危害問題的科學與社會爭論場域。美國從1993年開始的一系列關於法庭應當如何處理這種訴訟中的科學證據和專家證人與證詞的爭論，通過三個最高法院判例，產生了所謂「Daubert標準」；該標準的實施大量減少了美國毒物侵權訴訟的數量。十餘年來的爭議中，工業界與司法界多持肯定態度，但科學及其他領域專業者對於Daubert標準幾乎都強烈反對。本文檢視Daubert標準形成的背景、過程、及其立即影響，討論其中「科學事實」的邊界如何在爭議中被不同行動者打造、推移，並介紹美國STS學界對此的分析。同時，本文討論了Daubert標準所代表的制式科學因果觀之外的兩個重要的另類觀點：日本的「疫學原則」與歐盟的化學品登記法規所根據的「預防原則」。最後，本文嘗試討論類似RCA職業病案等台灣的司法訴訟事件對於STS學術所提出的重要知識課題。

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 STS 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 STS research and for wider understanding of science and society.

1. 吳志正(2008)。以疫學手法作為民事因果關係認定之檢討。東吳法律學報，20(1)，205-236。
   連結：
2. Council for Education and Research on Toxics et al. (2010). Amicus Curiae Brief of the Council for Education and Research on Toxics Et Al. In Milward V. Acuity Specialty Product. United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, Case No. 09-2270
3. 行政院勞工委員會（2010），〈既有化學物質審閱期程公告〉。http://csnn.cla.gov.tw/content/news-in.aspx?id=39。（檢索日期：2010年9月24日）
4. Bal, Roland(2005).How to Kill with a Ballpoint: Credibility in Dutch Forensic Science.Science, Technology and Human Values,30(1),52-75.
5. Berger, Margaret A.(2001).Upsetting the Balance between Adverse Interests: The Impact of the Supreme Court's Trilogy on Expert Testimony in Toxic Tort Litigation.Law and Contemporary Problems,64(2/3),289-326.
6. Boffetta, Paolo,Stellman, Steven D.,Garfinkel, Lawrence(1988).Diesel Exhaust Exposure and Mortality among Males in the American Cancer Society Prospective Study.American Journal of Industrial Medicine,14(4),403-415.
7. Brickley, Peg(2003).Science v. Law.Scientific American,289(6),30-32.
8. Calhoun, Martin C.(2008).Scientific Evidence in Court: Daubert or Frye, 15 Years Later.Washington Legal Foundation Lgeal Backgrounder,23(37),1-4.
9. Carruth, Russellyn,Wright-Walters, Maxine,Sussman, Nancy(2004).The Use of Epidemiological Findings of a Relative Risk of 2.0 in the American Court System.Epidemiology,15(4),S169.
10. Cheng, Edward K.,Yoon, Albert H.(2005).Does Frye or Daubert Matter? A Study of Scientific Admissibility Standards.Virginia Law Review,91(2),471-513.
11. Cole, Simon(2001).Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
12. Cranor, Carl F.(2001).Learning from the Law to Address Uncertainty in the Precautionary Principle.Science and Engineering Ethics,7(3),313-326.
13. Cranor, Carl F.(2004).Some Legal Implications of the Precautionary Principle: Improving Information-Generation and Legal Protections.International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health,17(1),17-34.
14. Cranor, Carl F.(2005).The Science Veil over Tort Law Policy: How Should Scientific Evidence Be Utilized in Toxic Tort Law?.Law and Philosophy,24(2),139-210.
15. Cranor, Carl F.(2006).Toxic Torts : Science, Law, and the Possibility of Justice.New York:Cambridge University Press.
16. Cranor, Carl F.(2005).Scientific Inferences in the Laboratory and the Law.American Journal of Public Health,95(S1),S121-128.
17. Cranor, Carl F.(2005).Some Legal Implications of the Precautionary Principle: Improving Information-Generation and Legal Protections.Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal,11(1),29-52.
18. Cranor, Carl F.(2003).How Should Society Approach the Real and Potential Risks Posed by New Technologies?.Plant Physiology,133(1),3-9.
19. Cranor, Carl F.(2004).Toward Understanding Aspects of the Precautionary Principle.Journal of Medical Philossophy,29(3),259-279.
20. Cranor, Carl F.(2004).Assessing Some of the Regulatory Approaches to Transgenic Plants: What Can We Learn from the Regulation of Other Technologies?.Environment and Biosafety Research,3(1),29-43.
21. Cranor, Carl F.,Eastmond, David A.(2001).Scientific Ignorance and Reliable Patterns of Evidence in Toxic Tort Causation: Is There a Need for Liability Reform?.Law and Contemporary Problems,64(4),5-48.
22. Descartes, Ren、錢志純譯、黎惟東譯(1984)。方法導論‧沈思錄。台北:志文。
23. Dixin, Lloyd,Gill, Brian(2001).Changes in the Standards for Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases since the Daubert Decision.Santa Monica, CA:RAND Institute for Civil Justice.
24. Dror, Itiel E.,Charlton, David(2006).Why Experts Make Errors.Journal of Forensic Identification,56(4),600-616.
25. Edge, David(2003).Celebration and Strategy: The 4s after 25 Years, and Sts after 9-11: Draft Remarks for the President's Plenary Session at the 4s Meeting, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA (7 November 2002).Social Studies of Science,33(2),161-169.
26. Edmond, Gary(2000).Judicial Representations of Scientific Evidence.The Modern Law Review,63(2),216-251.
27. Edmond, Gary(2002).Legal Engineering: Contested Representations of Law, Science (and Non-Science) and Society.Social Studies of Science,32(3),371-412.
28. Faigman, David L.(2002).Is Science Different for Lawyers?.Science,297,339-340.
29. Fisher, Donald(1990).Boundary Work and Science; the Relation between Power and Knowledge.Theories of Science in Society,Bloomington, IN:
30. Gieryn, Thomas F.(1983).Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional.American Sociological Review,48(6),781-795.
31. Gottesman, Michael H.(1994).Admissibility of Expert Testimony after Daubert: The "Prestige" Factor.Emory Law Journal,43,867.
32. Hansen, Eva S.(1993).A Follow-up Study on the Mortality of Truck Drivers.Am J Ind Med,23(5),811-821.
33. Heilbron, John L.(1989).Book Review: Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life.Medical History,33(2),256-257.
34. Hempel, Carl Gustav(1966).Philosophy of Natural Science.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
35. Hill, Austin Bradford(1965).The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?.Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine,58,295-300.
36. Horrobin, David F.(1990).The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation.Journal of the American Medical Association,263(10),1438-1441.
37. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee(2005).Forensic Science on Trial.London:The Stationery Office Limited.
38. Jasanoff, Sheila(2008).Representation and Re-Presentation in Litigation Science.Environmental Health Perspectives,116,123-129.
39. Jasanoff, Sheila(1990).The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers.Harvard University Press.
40. Jasanoff, Sheila(1995).Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America.Harvard University Press.
41. Kersey, Leslis E.(2009).20-Ton Canaries: The Great Whales of the North Atlantic: Note: Trans-Atlantic Reach: The Potential Impact of the European Union's New Chemical Regulations on Proof of Causation in U. S. Federal Courts.Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review,36,535-569.
42. Latour, Bruno,Woolgar, Steve(1986).Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
43. Lynch, Michael,Cole, Simon(2005).Science and Technology Studies on Trial: Dilemmas of Expertise.Social Studies of Science,35(2),269-311.
44. Mann, Robert W.(2000).Scientific Evidence in Court.Issues in Science and Technology,17(2),22.
45. McGarity, Thomas O.(2003).On the Prospect of "Daubertizing" Judicial Review of Risk Assessment.Law and Contemporary Problems,66(4),155-225.
46. McGarity, Thomas O.(2005).Daubert and the Proper Role for the Courts in Health, Safety, and Environmental Regulation.American Journal of Public Health,95(S1),S92-98.
47. Myers, Nancy J.,Raffensperger, Carolyn(2006).Precautionary Tools for Reshaping Environmental Policy.Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
48. Popper, Karl Raimund(1974).Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.London:Routledge & K. Paul.
49. Raffensperger, Carolyn(2009).Climate Legacy Initiative Background PaperClimate Legacy Initiative Background Paper,未出版
50. Raffensperger, Carolyn,Tickner, Joel A.(1999).Protecting Public Health & the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle.Washington, D.C.:Island Press.
51. Relman, Arnold S.,Angell, Marcia(1989).How Good Is Peer Review?.New England Journal of Medicine,321(12),827-829.
52. Rolle, Mary Elliott(2003).Graduate Note: Unraveling Accountability: Contesting Legal and Procedural Barriers in International Toxic Tort Cases.Georgetown International Environmental Law Review,15,135-201.
53. Rothstein, Barbara Jacobs(2005).Bringing Science to Law.American Journal of Public Health,95(S1),S4.
54. Shapin, Steven、Schaffe, Simon I.、蔡佩君譯(2006)。利維坦與空氣泵浦：霍布斯、波以耳與實驗生活。台北:行人。
55. SKAPP=Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy(2003).Daubert: The Most Influential Supreme Court Ruling You've Never Heard Of.Boston:Tellus Institute.
56. Solomon, Shana M.,Hackett, Edward J.(1996).Setting Boundaries between Science and Law: Lessons from Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Science, Technology and Human Values,21(2),131-156.
57. Taylor, Iain E. P.(2007).Genetically Engineered Crops: Interim Policies, Uncertain Legislation.New York:Haworth Food & Agricultural Products Press.
58. Woskie, Susan R.,Smith, Thomas J.,Hammond, S. Katherine(1988).Estimation of the Diesel Exhaust Exposures of Railroad Workers: I. Current Exposures.American Journal of Industrial Medicine,13(3),381-394.
59. Ziman, John(1978).Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

1. 黃于玲(2015)。過期的正義？RCA 案中的時效與科學知識政治。科技、醫療與社會，20，255-262。
2. 林木興,周桂田(2020)。以化學物質風險治理作為權限：歐盟與臺灣管制機關之比較。中正大學法學集刊，67，97-166。
3. 林宜平(2015)。RCA訴訟與判決裡的科學證據。臺灣公共衛生雜誌，34(3)，219-222。
4. 邱文聰(2012)。如何克服公衛訴訟中因果推論的難題：法律系統面對風險社會的一個挑戰。科技、醫療與社會，14，227-264。
5. 施佳良、杜文苓(2014)。環評知識的政治角色—檢視六輕健康風險評估爭議。臺灣民主季刊，11(2)，91-138。
6. 蘇上雅(2019)。傷害之後，法律如何動起來：臺灣油症公害的法律與社會研究（1979－1990）。科技醫療與社會，29，119-181。
7. 吳怡伶、王實之(2012)。常民參與對醫療知識與衛生政策的貢獻：職業病認定與補償之爭議的歷史分析。臺灣社會研究季刊，89，127-184。
8. 葉詠翔(2016)。雙倍風險標準的因果關係論。法令月刊，67(11)，124-145。
9. 張國暉(2012)。科學、技術與自由民主政治秩序的變遷：近代美國政治體制的科學意識型態與現實政治。政治與社會哲學評論，42，153-205。
10. (2014)。掙脫鳥籠─反思臺灣公共衛生議題裡的因果關係。中研院法學期刊，15，283-329。
11. (2016)。RCA 判決與環境責任法制之關聯性。月旦法學雜誌，253，45-54。
12. (2016)。荒謬法院或失靈政府？從日月光後勁溪污染二審判決談起。月旦法學雜誌，253，20-30。
13. (2022)。法律與現代性。政大法學評論，特刊，179-223。
14. (2023).Field Report: Taiwan’s RCA Litigation and Its Multiple Outreaches: The Experience of an STS Community, 2011–2023.East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal,17(4),494-520.
15. (2023).Late Industrialism, Advocacy, and Law: Relays Toward Just Transition.East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal,17(4),462-493.