Daubert, Joiner, Kumho  (I’ll call them DJK to simplify) set certain (nonexclusive) criteria for acceptable expert witnesses and expert testimony (here is a good summary and here’s a fascinating special issue of Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law on general distinctions between how scientists and clinical practitioners and folks in the legal professions approach evidence, DJK issues included AND here’s an October 14^th 2011 post from the venerable folks at the ABA).   One of the criteria established was peer acceptance of their views.  Now, I spent some time in academe (studying ancient languages and history – so, of course, the hard sciences are different, no doubt) and realize that (ever so rarely) peer acceptance seems a political undertaking as much a scientific (not to be too much of a post-modern deconstructionist cynic, but…).  Okay, enough parenthetical caution – let me throw out the question – does DJK create an atmosphere where valid alternative therapies or scientific explanations are ignored in our courts of law.  If so, what is the effect of that? (more…)