{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016494845360824743, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.6506849315068495, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Would a Federal Judicial Science Board improve toxic tort litigation?

Over the past two decades, courts have struggled with technical and scientific evidence regarding the causal connection between exposure to hazardous substances and disease states. Judges' and juries' inability to understand the uncertainty inherent in toxicological evidence of causation has led to decisions which are incorrect from a scientific point of view. These problems are exacerbated by the "battle of experts," which is the traditional method for presenting scientific evidence to courts. Alternative means for presenting scientific evidence to courts, such as court-appointed experts and use of panels of expert scientists, are theoretically superior to the existing adversarial process. A Federal Judicial Science Board could coordinate the use of court-appointed experts and science panels and make them more attractive alternatives to courts struggling with issues of toxic causation.