{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02822273073989321, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.218009478672986, '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}}
The use of science in environmental law. A short critical review of recent Italian litigation

Abstract This paper presents a critical short review of an ongoing conflict between science and law in recent Italian litigation with the aim of illustrating how the so-called “flawed science” can negatively impact litigation. An effective story is used to introduce the primary elements that can characterize “flawed science” (i.e. insufficient sample size, the presence of confounding factors, the lack of predefined models, and an insufficient consideration of the so-called “regression toward the mean” phenomenon). An in-depth analysis of the most relevant Italian case law will then show how “flawed science” has been applied in a justice dimension. In particular, analyzing the “L'Aquila case” will demonstrate how “flawed science” can bring about questionable outcomes as regards the establishment of the causal link between negligent conduct and the damage occurred. The paper will then move on to analyze the conflict between technology and progress in an environmental justice context. In order to illustrate this point, the “ILVA case” will serve as a rather effective example of how the so-called “supreme rights” can be avoided through the establishment and application of legitimate legislative tools.