Improving APA science translation amicus briefs

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This commentary uses APA's brief in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins to examine a number of issues concerning such briefs submitted to appellate courts: What are the purposes of APA's science translation briefs? What role conflicts emerge between legal advocates and empirical scientists? In what ways are these exacerbated or lessened by the respective duties of advocates and scientists? In what ways may the conflicts be compelled by differences between legal and empirical questions? How adequate are Brandeis briefs as a tool for communicating empirical research findings to appellate courts? Are any of the usual adversarial protections maintained? What is the question the court might look to the brief, and to the field, to answer? What is the role for meta-analyses? For what interests might APA as an amicus advocate? In addition to organizational self-interest and the public interest, does it ever make sense to advocate, in a purported science translation brief, on behalf of an ultimate issue in the case or for one of the parties to the litigation? To these difficult problems, I suggest a potentially simple solution.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)235-247
Number of pages13
JournalLaw and Human Behavior
Volume17
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1993
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

appellate court
role conflict
Empirical Research
Jurisprudence
public interest
science
Meta-Analysis
empirical research
Appellate Court
Gerard Manley Hopkins
Litigation
Public Interest

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law
  • Social Psychology
  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Improving APA science translation amicus briefs. / Saks, Michael.

In: Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 17, No. 2, 04.1993, p. 235-247.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ba8930dc049b47c2abf3af48a7aef73b,
title = "Improving APA science translation amicus briefs",
abstract = "This commentary uses APA's brief in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins to examine a number of issues concerning such briefs submitted to appellate courts: What are the purposes of APA's science translation briefs? What role conflicts emerge between legal advocates and empirical scientists? In what ways are these exacerbated or lessened by the respective duties of advocates and scientists? In what ways may the conflicts be compelled by differences between legal and empirical questions? How adequate are Brandeis briefs as a tool for communicating empirical research findings to appellate courts? Are any of the usual adversarial protections maintained? What is the question the court might look to the brief, and to the field, to answer? What is the role for meta-analyses? For what interests might APA as an amicus advocate? In addition to organizational self-interest and the public interest, does it ever make sense to advocate, in a purported science translation brief, on behalf of an ultimate issue in the case or for one of the parties to the litigation? To these difficult problems, I suggest a potentially simple solution.",
author = "Michael Saks",
year = "1993",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1007/BF01045941",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "235--247",
journal = "Law and Human Behavior",
issn = "0147-7307",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving APA science translation amicus briefs

AU - Saks, Michael

PY - 1993/4

Y1 - 1993/4

N2 - This commentary uses APA's brief in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins to examine a number of issues concerning such briefs submitted to appellate courts: What are the purposes of APA's science translation briefs? What role conflicts emerge between legal advocates and empirical scientists? In what ways are these exacerbated or lessened by the respective duties of advocates and scientists? In what ways may the conflicts be compelled by differences between legal and empirical questions? How adequate are Brandeis briefs as a tool for communicating empirical research findings to appellate courts? Are any of the usual adversarial protections maintained? What is the question the court might look to the brief, and to the field, to answer? What is the role for meta-analyses? For what interests might APA as an amicus advocate? In addition to organizational self-interest and the public interest, does it ever make sense to advocate, in a purported science translation brief, on behalf of an ultimate issue in the case or for one of the parties to the litigation? To these difficult problems, I suggest a potentially simple solution.

AB - This commentary uses APA's brief in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins to examine a number of issues concerning such briefs submitted to appellate courts: What are the purposes of APA's science translation briefs? What role conflicts emerge between legal advocates and empirical scientists? In what ways are these exacerbated or lessened by the respective duties of advocates and scientists? In what ways may the conflicts be compelled by differences between legal and empirical questions? How adequate are Brandeis briefs as a tool for communicating empirical research findings to appellate courts? Are any of the usual adversarial protections maintained? What is the question the court might look to the brief, and to the field, to answer? What is the role for meta-analyses? For what interests might APA as an amicus advocate? In addition to organizational self-interest and the public interest, does it ever make sense to advocate, in a purported science translation brief, on behalf of an ultimate issue in the case or for one of the parties to the litigation? To these difficult problems, I suggest a potentially simple solution.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=21144484025&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=21144484025&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/BF01045941

DO - 10.1007/BF01045941

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:21144484025

VL - 17

SP - 235

EP - 247

JO - Law and Human Behavior

JF - Law and Human Behavior

SN - 0147-7307

IS - 2

ER -