In this blog post, we will examine the relationship between science and law and explore how these two fields—both dedicated to the pursuit of truth and justice—interact in the real world.
You’ve probably heard the saying, “Science pursues truth, and law pursues justice.” When we hear the word “science,” we picture researchers immersed in their work in a laboratory; when we hear the word “law,” we picture a trial in a solemn courtroom involving a judge, lawyers, witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants. At first glance, these two seem to exist in completely different worlds. However, in reality, there are many cases where science and technology adjust their research directions in response to the influence of the law, and the law, in turn, revises existing rulings or establishes new legal standards based on scientifically verified evidence.
So, is the relationship between science and technology and the law one of alliance, reluctant coexistence, cooperation, or an uneasy union? The book ‘Science on Trial’, which I read, offers answers to these questions through various case studies. It discusses how to reconcile the ongoing debates between science and law and what kind of relationship between the two fields is desirable.
Let’s examine this in more detail. In the relationship between science, technology, and the law, is science truly value-neutral and independent? Considering that scientific conclusions are derived from specifically measured data—rather than mere assertions or opinions—it might be easy to answer this question in the affirmative. However, upon further reflection, another question arises: Can a conclusion based on measured data always be considered an absolute truth? It is difficult to answer this question with a straightforward “yes.”
When I was in high school, I once came across this sentence somewhere: “Is it really gravity that causes an apple to fall?” Most people studying science and engineering would answer “yes.” But if we think about it a little more deeply, it is difficult to assert that this is an absolute truth either. The “truth” in science is merely the most appropriate theory and explanatory framework that provides the most natural and rational explanation for the natural phenomena we observe. No one can definitively determine the fundamental nature of the natural world. To put it extremely, it’s possible that some other force in the universe is pushing the apple and the Earth toward each other, causing them to collide. Of course, such an assumption is practically a meaningless hypothesis. However, the core point this thought experiment makes is clear: while science advances based on concrete, measured data, that does not necessarily mean it represents absolute truth. This is because errors can always exist in the measurement process, and the researcher’s perspective or interpretation may be partially reflected in the process of interpreting the data.
The reason for discussing the limitations of science in this way is that scientific findings are used as crucial evidence in court. Generally, scientific evidence is recognized as highly reliable and thus serves as an important basis for judgment in trials. However, if the findings themselves are incorrect or have not been sufficiently verified, the situation can change completely.
Scientists are regarded as figures who resolve disputes over facts without being swayed by external influences and who distinguish between valid and invalid claims. If scientists were truly completely independent, the problem would lie in the legal system’s ignorance and limitations in properly understanding the message of science. However, one point that must not be overlooked here is the fact that science, too, is not always perfect. Science, too, evolves amid constant debate, and different conclusions may arise depending on the hypotheses, assumptions, research methods, and modes of interpretation within a specific field.
Traditionally, the emergence of new science and technology is followed by demands to realign human behavior, social institutions, and the relationships between them. New technologies replace existing methods, and the law must make new determinations regarding important concepts such as causality, rights, duties, and responsibilities. Scientific knowledge and the technologies derived from it establish their credibility through socially recognized research frameworks and verification processes. In other words, science is by no means an independent system completely separated from society; rather, it is closely linked to social institutions and interacts intimately with the various orders of modern society.
Legal proceedings play a crucial role in shaping and stabilizing the order of science and technology within society. The process of interpreting science and technology within the legal system also influences the realms of power and authority, and at times, even extends to political issues. Furthermore, in the process of resolving disputes related to science and technology, the law helps members of society understand science and facilitates the formation of social consensus. Ultimately, science and law are not mutually incompatible institutions, but rather a relationship in which they constantly influence one another and evolve together within society.
However, there is another interesting point. In litigation—the process through which the law is enforced—the winning party is legally recognized, and that outcome is accepted as justice. If the pursuit of justice is the essence of law, then the statement that “the winning party becomes justice” sounds somewhat paradoxical.
A trial is fundamentally an adversarial process in which attorneys for both sides contest each other’s arguments. To take an extreme example, if an attorney defending a defendant accused of murder secures an acquittal through outstanding advocacy, that attorney might be regarded as an exceptional legal professional. Common sense would suggest that justice requires a person who has committed murder to receive the corresponding punishment. However, if a not-guilty verdict is handed down due to outstanding advocacy, the situation becomes difficult to accept. Of course, this example is extremely extreme. Yet the key point this example illustrates is that while science aims to uncover objective truth, the law is a system that reaches a conclusion by examining the arguments of both sides within established procedures. Therefore, rather than always determining absolute truth itself, the law plays the role of acknowledging and judging facts in accordance with the law and established procedures.
From another perspective, science aims to uncover facts as accurately as possible. While the law also strives to accurately establish facts, there is a crucial difference: the law must reach a conclusion within a set timeframe. Legal judgments are subject to time constraints. Once no new evidence is submitted, the proceedings must conclude, and the court cannot indefinitely postpone a verdict simply on the grounds that better evidence might emerge at some point. From a scientist’s perspective, such decisions may seem somewhat hasty, but the law must reach a conclusion based on the evidence available at that moment. The facts determined by a judge must ultimately be based on the evidence and testimony presented in court.
British mystery writer Austin Freeman sharply pointed out this limitation of judges. While a scientist’s judgment is based on their own research, observations, and verification, a court renders a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. If a witness testifies that black is white and no evidence is presented to refute this, the court has no choice but to make its judgment based on the evidence submitted. Of course, in actual trials, various procedures—such as cross-examination and the submission of diverse evidence—are in place to prevent such extreme situations from occurring. Nevertheless, Austin Freeman’s observation clearly demonstrates that the law is a system operated by procedure and evidence. Paradoxically, this means that legal justice is not determined solely by absolute truth but can also be influenced by evidence, procedure, and the role of the legal professionals handling the case.
Summarizing what has been discussed so far, science does not always signify absolute truth, nor can we assume that the law always perfectly embodies absolute justice. Moreover, in modern society, where science is highly specialized, it is a reality that legal professionals find it difficult to deeply understand every scientific field. To compensate for these limitations, various systems have been developed, such as training legal professionals with scientific education or actively utilizing expert witnesses in cases requiring scientific expertise. Even today, in various fields such as product liability, medical malpractice, environmental damage, cutting-edge biotechnology, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, and personal data protection, science and law are working closely together to establish new standards. Ultimately, science and law are in a relationship where neither can completely replace the other; they must respond to social changes by influencing and being influenced by one another.
In conclusion, this article aims to discuss the ideal interaction between science and law. The balance cannot—and indeed should not—lean entirely toward one side. Science provides the law with objective evidence and expert advice, while the law establishes social standards and responsibilities without compromising the essence of science. Although the law sometimes adjusts the direction of scientific and technological development or slows its pace, this too can be viewed as a process designed to ensure the safety of society as a whole and protect the public interest.
In a way, as I reflected on this topic and researched it, I seem to have unconsciously expected that science and law would exist separately from one another. Even if they were not completely separate, I thought that in some areas the law would take precedence, while in others science would function independently. However, that was not the case in reality. I believe the most appropriate way to describe this is that science and law are closely interconnected, jointly guiding society forward and, through constant interaction, creating a more rational and balanced social order.
