Concerns Raised Over New Science Manual for Judges

A recent revision of a science education manual for judges has drawn criticism for straying from its historical commitment to neutrality, according to three prominent physicists who addressed a letter to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

The letter’s authors—Drs. Richard Lindzen of MIT, William Happer of Princeton, and Steven Koonin from Stanford’s Hoover Institution—voiced their concerns about the Fourth Edition of the “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.” They specifically called for the removal of a new chapter titled “How Science Works.” This manual has been a key resource for over 3,000 federal judges and many state judges, often cited in judicial opinions to help differentiate reliable scientific information from speculation. Its longstanding strength lies in its adherence to the scientific method, a principle it honors while steering clear of political influences and pseudoscience.

With more than 600 peer-reviewed publications among them, the physicists bring significant expertise to the topic. Their main issue is the replacement of the late David Goodstein’s respected chapter with a new, lengthy, and, in their view, intellectually unsound 65-page alternative.

The new chapter, primarily authored by philosopher Michael Weisberg, poses some potential conflicts of interest. Weisberg’s past advocacy at U.N. climate discussions, where he supported financial aid for small island nations allegedly facing climate threats, raises questions about the neutrality of his guidance on scientific evidence, particularly in light of the ongoing climate litigation with huge financial stakes.

Beyond this, the letter underscores more substantial concerns. While Goodstein emphasized traditional practices in science—like hypothesis generation and testing—the new chapter dismisses the scientific method as a “myth.” Instead, it promotes “scientific consensus” as the ultimate form of truth. This approach risks turning scientific inquiry into something that resembles a popularity contest.

As Richard Feynman famously put it, the core of science lies in comparing predictions with actual observations: “If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.” This sentiment resonates with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, which highlighted the necessity of deriving scientific knowledge through empirical testing. Goodstein’s earlier version noted, “Data are the coin of the realm in science,” asserting that theories should be testable. In contrast, consensus is more of a sociological observation.

Michael Crichton pointed out that if something is based on consensus, it cannot truly be classified as science. History informs us that popular consensus on theories—such as plate tectonics or global cooling fears—has been overturned by evidence rather than majority opinion.

Adding to the chapter’s biased leanings is its initial reference to “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, which claims there is “zero argument among actual scientists” regarding catastrophic climate change—a statement challenged by substantial contrary data.

Identifying dissenters with legitimate credentials as being outside the realm of “actual science” is not appropriate for an educational resource meant for judges. Science should promote challenging existing perspectives through data, rather than upholding community norms. The Federal Judicial Center had previously pulled a contentious chapter on climate science from the manual after 27 state attorneys general highlighted its conflicts and dubious claims. Yet, the “How Science Works” chapter, which supports these now-removed contents, remains intact.

As over 1,000 climate-related lawsuits are ongoing in courts, judges require guidance anchored in empirical credibility. Lindzen, Happer, and Koonin assert that the Center should promptly rescind the new chapter and bring back Goodstein’s original version, which conveyed scientific reasoning clearly for those without specialized backgrounds.

They also recommend that the National Academy of Sciences withdraw both chapters from its version of the Manual. Maintaining the integrity of judicial guidance on scientific matters transcends partisan divides.

Chief Justice Roberts and the Federal Judicial Center have the chance to reinforce their commitment to impartiality and bolster trust in the Manual. In a time when science faces increasing politicization, it is crucial to uphold high standards for what constitutes scientific evidence in legal settings.

The integrity of the American judicial system depends on it.