As most of us fundamentally know, there are times a scientist should and should not act as an advocate. As an individual, advocating for environmental preservation is almost required as a member of the world’s schola...As most of us fundamentally know, there are times a scientist should and should not act as an advocate. As an individual, advocating for environmental preservation is almost required as a member of the world’s scholarly scientific community. However, when that same scientist is asked to offer opinion testimony as an expert witness within the parameters of a lawsuit filed within their particular legal system, there is no room for advocacy. Because it appears that the line an expert scientist must not cross is becoming ever more blurred, we intend to discuss when a scientist should and should not act as an advocate and the reasons that the line between advocate and impartial expert exists. In a legal setting such as a trial or an arbitration hearing, scientists are required to be qualified as an “expert” on the technical subject being considered by the trier of fact before rendering any opinions. Indeed, scientists, unlike all other witnesses, are permitted to present opinions regarding otherwise admissible evidence after being accepted by the Judge as a qualified expert in the field to which he or she intends to testify. However, while the scientist is permitted to present his or her opinions, the scientist is not permitted to advocate for a position or for their interpretation of the evidence presented in a courtroom trial or an arbitration hearing. Rather, those roles are reserved for the parties’ attorneys. Rather, it is the role of the scientist to solely offer opinions with respect to the evidence or facts which are the subject of the dispute. In doing so, the scientist is expected to act as disinterested scholar or teacher faithfully interpreting the data whatever it may reveal. In the eyes of established legal systems, such as the United States (U.S.) or United Kingdom (U.K.), were a scientist to attempt to become an advocate, rather than a scholar and teacher, that scientist’s opinions would no longer be based on fact but, rather, the interests of his or her client, thus damaging the scientist’s credibility. In doing so, the expert could potentially cause irreparable harm to his or her client’s case and his or her reputation.展开更多
The current techniques used in forensic geochemical hydrocarbon fingerprinting have their genesis along with the evolution of gas chromatography as it applies to hydrocarbon research. In the United States, a small gro...The current techniques used in forensic geochemical hydrocarbon fingerprinting have their genesis along with the evolution of gas chromatography as it applies to hydrocarbon research. In the United States, a small group of government and academic chemists and marine scientists pioneered the use of gas chromatography in the identification of both natural and petroleum-derived hydrocarbons. Natural products were a primary focus until the research direction was altered somewhat by marine oil spills, accidents releasing crude oil and refined petroleum products to the world’s coastal marine environment, giving rise to concerns regarding biogeochemical impacts. Application of oil spill research continued from that point so that the geochemical research begun in the late 1960s and early 1970s now forms a major component of investigations of petroleum releases both in the aquatic and terrestrial environments. As the capabilities for the identification of individual hydrocarbons in a variety of petroleum products improved with basic advances in chromatographic technology, new applied sciences in forensic geochemical hydrocarbon fingerprinting have emerged. While in the beginning the identification of bulk petroleum products received primary emphasis, current techniques are now capable of distinguishing among a variety of potential sources including those derived from natural processes, undetected individual releases, chronic releases and obvious catastrophic releases. However, a review of the techniques employed in the late 1960s and early 1970s will show that the basic approaches pioneered at that time are still in use today, albeit with a higher level, with concomitant advances in chromatographic technology as the questions grow in complexity.展开更多
文摘As most of us fundamentally know, there are times a scientist should and should not act as an advocate. As an individual, advocating for environmental preservation is almost required as a member of the world’s scholarly scientific community. However, when that same scientist is asked to offer opinion testimony as an expert witness within the parameters of a lawsuit filed within their particular legal system, there is no room for advocacy. Because it appears that the line an expert scientist must not cross is becoming ever more blurred, we intend to discuss when a scientist should and should not act as an advocate and the reasons that the line between advocate and impartial expert exists. In a legal setting such as a trial or an arbitration hearing, scientists are required to be qualified as an “expert” on the technical subject being considered by the trier of fact before rendering any opinions. Indeed, scientists, unlike all other witnesses, are permitted to present opinions regarding otherwise admissible evidence after being accepted by the Judge as a qualified expert in the field to which he or she intends to testify. However, while the scientist is permitted to present his or her opinions, the scientist is not permitted to advocate for a position or for their interpretation of the evidence presented in a courtroom trial or an arbitration hearing. Rather, those roles are reserved for the parties’ attorneys. Rather, it is the role of the scientist to solely offer opinions with respect to the evidence or facts which are the subject of the dispute. In doing so, the scientist is expected to act as disinterested scholar or teacher faithfully interpreting the data whatever it may reveal. In the eyes of established legal systems, such as the United States (U.S.) or United Kingdom (U.K.), were a scientist to attempt to become an advocate, rather than a scholar and teacher, that scientist’s opinions would no longer be based on fact but, rather, the interests of his or her client, thus damaging the scientist’s credibility. In doing so, the expert could potentially cause irreparable harm to his or her client’s case and his or her reputation.
文摘The current techniques used in forensic geochemical hydrocarbon fingerprinting have their genesis along with the evolution of gas chromatography as it applies to hydrocarbon research. In the United States, a small group of government and academic chemists and marine scientists pioneered the use of gas chromatography in the identification of both natural and petroleum-derived hydrocarbons. Natural products were a primary focus until the research direction was altered somewhat by marine oil spills, accidents releasing crude oil and refined petroleum products to the world’s coastal marine environment, giving rise to concerns regarding biogeochemical impacts. Application of oil spill research continued from that point so that the geochemical research begun in the late 1960s and early 1970s now forms a major component of investigations of petroleum releases both in the aquatic and terrestrial environments. As the capabilities for the identification of individual hydrocarbons in a variety of petroleum products improved with basic advances in chromatographic technology, new applied sciences in forensic geochemical hydrocarbon fingerprinting have emerged. While in the beginning the identification of bulk petroleum products received primary emphasis, current techniques are now capable of distinguishing among a variety of potential sources including those derived from natural processes, undetected individual releases, chronic releases and obvious catastrophic releases. However, a review of the techniques employed in the late 1960s and early 1970s will show that the basic approaches pioneered at that time are still in use today, albeit with a higher level, with concomitant advances in chromatographic technology as the questions grow in complexity.
