OSF | Why open science matters to factfinding in courts

Both science and expert evidence law are undergoing significant changes. In this article, the authors compare these two movements – the open science movement and the evidence-based evidence movement. The open science movement is the recent discovery of many irreproducible findings in science and the subsequent move towards more transparent methods. The evidence-based evidence movement is the discovery that many forms of expert evidence are unreliable and that they have contributed to wrongful convictions. The authors identify many similarities between these movements, including misaligned incentives, cognitive bias, and too much weight accorded to eminence. These similarities suggest several ways in which courts and legal actors may learn from the open science movement. Expert witnesses should comport themselves as rigorous open scientists. Parties should be subjected to more specific and rigorous disclosure requirements because research has shown that even leading scientists find it easy to discount and suppress findings that do not support their hypotheses. And trial judges, as gatekeepers, should not defer to the generally accepted practices that have proven insufficient in the mainstream sciences. The authors end with proposal for systemic reforms designed to further the ideal of open justice.