Scientific literacy and the jury: reconsidering jury `competence'

Abstract

This article explores contemporary debates about the competence of juries to assess scientific and technical evidence. Most existing approaches measure jury competence against an unproblematized yardstick of `the correct scientific understanding'. We will develop an alternative, more sociologically and epistemologically nuanced view of the jury comprehension of science which significantly reframes these issues for both proponents and opponents of the jury. In particular, by using examples surrounding the recent US litigation involving birth defects allegedly caused by use of the drug Bendectin, we will challenge the common claim that inconsistencies in jury findings provide support for restricting the role of the jury in matters involving science and technology based on alleged jury `incompetence'. We conclude by noting that jury competence is a politically charged ascription.