科学知识欺诈

Wes Henricksen
{"title":"科学知识欺诈","authors":"Wes Henricksen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3188335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The tobacco, asbestos, and fossil fuel industries, among others, have misled the public about the dangers posed by their products by lying about the science behind the products. Individuals harmed by these misrepresentations should be able to sue for fraud. Plaintiffs in fraud cases of this kind—where the misrepresentation pertains to scientific knowledge—face far greater obstacles to proving falsity, a required fraud element, than do typical fraud plaintiffs. Accordingly, a different falsity standard should apply in such cases. This Article answers three questions about how that standard should be crafted and applied. First, how should a court determine if a case before it is one to which this new standard should apply? Second, how should the court determine what knowledge the scientific community held at a given time for the purpose of assessing the truthfulness or falsity of a statement or omission? And third, how should courts compare that baseline truth with the defendant’s statement or omission to determine falsity? Answering these questions should help make it possible for those harmed by scientific knowledge fraud to obtain relief.","PeriodicalId":157380,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Anthropology eJournal","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scientific Knowledge Fraud\",\"authors\":\"Wes Henricksen\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3188335\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The tobacco, asbestos, and fossil fuel industries, among others, have misled the public about the dangers posed by their products by lying about the science behind the products. Individuals harmed by these misrepresentations should be able to sue for fraud. Plaintiffs in fraud cases of this kind—where the misrepresentation pertains to scientific knowledge—face far greater obstacles to proving falsity, a required fraud element, than do typical fraud plaintiffs. Accordingly, a different falsity standard should apply in such cases. This Article answers three questions about how that standard should be crafted and applied. First, how should a court determine if a case before it is one to which this new standard should apply? Second, how should the court determine what knowledge the scientific community held at a given time for the purpose of assessing the truthfulness or falsity of a statement or omission? And third, how should courts compare that baseline truth with the defendant’s statement or omission to determine falsity? Answering these questions should help make it possible for those harmed by scientific knowledge fraud to obtain relief.\",\"PeriodicalId\":157380,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Anthropology eJournal\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Anthropology eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3188335\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Anthropology eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3188335","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

烟草、石棉和化石燃料等行业通过谎报产品背后的科学,误导公众对其产品构成的危险。受到这些虚假陈述伤害的个人应该能够起诉欺诈。在这类欺诈案件中——其中的虚假陈述与科学知识有关——原告在证明虚假(一种必要的欺诈要素)方面面临着比典型欺诈原告更大的障碍。因此,在这种情况下应适用不同的虚假标准。本文回答了关于如何制定和应用该标准的三个问题。首先,法院应如何确定其审理的案件是否应适用这一新标准?其次,为了评估陈述或遗漏的真实性或虚假性,法院应如何确定科学界在给定时间内所掌握的知识?第三,法院应该如何将基线事实与被告的陈述或遗漏进行比较,以确定虚假?回答这些问题应该有助于那些受到科学知识欺诈伤害的人获得救济。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Scientific Knowledge Fraud
The tobacco, asbestos, and fossil fuel industries, among others, have misled the public about the dangers posed by their products by lying about the science behind the products. Individuals harmed by these misrepresentations should be able to sue for fraud. Plaintiffs in fraud cases of this kind—where the misrepresentation pertains to scientific knowledge—face far greater obstacles to proving falsity, a required fraud element, than do typical fraud plaintiffs. Accordingly, a different falsity standard should apply in such cases. This Article answers three questions about how that standard should be crafted and applied. First, how should a court determine if a case before it is one to which this new standard should apply? Second, how should the court determine what knowledge the scientific community held at a given time for the purpose of assessing the truthfulness or falsity of a statement or omission? And third, how should courts compare that baseline truth with the defendant’s statement or omission to determine falsity? Answering these questions should help make it possible for those harmed by scientific knowledge fraud to obtain relief.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信