David E Bernstein
Other affiliations: Brooklyn Law School, Washington University in St. Louis, University of Notre Dame ...read more
Bio: David E Bernstein is an academic researcher from George Mason University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Supreme court & Jurisprudence. The author has an hindex of 14, co-authored 102 publications receiving 830 citations. Previous affiliations of David E Bernstein include Brooklyn Law School & Washington University in St. Louis.
Papers published on a yearly basis
TL;DR: The x-ray optical design of the soft x-rays materials science instrument at the Linac Coherent Light Source is presented, consisting of a varied line-spaced grating monochromator and Kirkpatrick-Baez refocusing optics.
Abstract: We present the x-ray optical design of the soft x-ray materials science instrument at the Linac Coherent Light Source, consisting of a varied line-spaced grating monochromator and Kirkpatrick-Baez refocusing optics. Results from the commissioning of the monochromator are shown. A resolving power of 3000 was achieved, which is within a factor of two of the design goal.
TL;DR: The results indicate that alcohol depresses serum testosterone levels and, thereby, produces clinical symptoms associated with hypoandrogenization and suggest that acute alcohol administration also affects the hypothalamic-pituitary axis by reducing serum LH levels--an effect that may represent the primary action of alcohol on the HPG.
Abstract: The results of the current studies further document that acute alcohol administration markedly disrupts the function of the HPG in the male Our results indicate that alcohol depresses serum testosterone levels and, thereby, produces clinical symptoms associated with hypoandrogenization Moreover, our studies suggest that acute alcohol administration also affects the hypothalamic-pituitary axis by reducing serum LH levels--an effect that may represent the primary action of alcohol on the HPG
TL;DR: This chapter discusses phantom risk - a problem at the interface of science and the law in the context of Three Mile Island nuclear accident and public health consequences.
Abstract: A scientific perspective a legal perspective. Part 1 Phantom (or not so phantom) risks: weak magnetic fields - a cancer connection?, Kenneth R. Foster spermicides and birth defects, James L. Mills Benedictin and the language of causation, Louis Lasagna and Sheila R. Shulman miscarriage and video display terminals - an update, Kenneth R. Foster the legal context. Part 2 Just a little bit of poison: environmental pollution and cancer - some misconceptions, Bruce N. Ames and Lois Swirsky Gold asbestos - the hazard, the risk and public policy, Ralph D'Agostino, Jr. and Richard Wilson the human health effects of polychlorinated biphenyls, Renate D. Kimbrough trichloroethylene - toxicology and epidemiology - a critical review of the literature, Rudolph J. Jaeger and Arlene L. Weiss dioxin -perceptions, estimates and measures, Michael Gough the Three Mile Island nuclear accident and public health consequences, George K. Tokuhata the fallout controversy, Ralph E. Lapp the saga of Fernald, Bernard L. Cohen the legal context. Part 3 Medical controversy: trauma and cancer, Marvin M. Romsdahl chemical pollutants and "multiple chemical sensitivities", Michael I. Luster et al immunologic laboratory tests - a critique of the Alcolac decision, Richard S. Cornfeld and Stuart F. Schlossman the legal context. Part 4 Conclusion - phantom risk - a problem at the interface of science and the law.
TL;DR: In the context of forensic expertise in criminal cases, Rule 702 does not address the huge gaps in resources between the prosecution and most defendants that severely inhibit defendants' ability to challenge unreliable prosecution expert testimony as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: This manuscript raises two questions that have been surprisingly missing from the voluminous law review literature on expert evidence since the landmark Daubert decision. First, what is the underlying rationale for the replacement of the old qualifications-only, let-it-all standard for expert testimony with Daubert/Federal Rule of Evidence 702's requirement that all expert testimony be subject to a stringent reliability test? Second, once we have identified this rationale, has the Daubert revolution succeeded on its own terms? I conclude that the implicit rationale for the reliability test is to preserve the perceived advantages of the adversarial system, while mitigating the harms to the courts' truth-seeking function by the inevitable strong biases that accompany adversarial expert testimony. These biases include the conscious biases of hired guns, the unconscious biases of other paid experts, and the selection biases that result from the fact that attorneys shop for their experts from a large pool of qualified individuals. Rule 702 thus attempts to serve a worthy goal, but it far from fully succeeds in efficiently achieving this goal. First, in the context of forensic expertise in criminal cases, Rule 702 does nothing to address the huge gaps in resources between the prosecution and most defendants that severely inhibit defendants' ability to challenge unreliable prosecution expert testimony. Second, Rule 702, applied correctly, does succeed in barring junk science causation evidence in toxic torts cases. However, it does so at the expense of excluding speculative evidence supporting causation, even when most experts in the field would conclude that the relevant evidence is a sufficient basis from which to find causation by a preponderance of the evidence. While Rule 702 is easily preferable to the prior overly permissive regime, it likely goes too far in insisting on a reliability test that makes the courtroom stricter about causation evidence than is the scientific community itself. The way around this problem is to amend Rule 702 to allow courts to admit educated guesses about causation, but only when nonpartisan experts, not subject to adversarial bias, are willing to make such guesses. Finally, Rule 702 puts severe restrictions on the testimony of experience-based testimony by connoisseurs. Such experts may only testify if their field of expertise is a legitimate one, and they have proven to the court that they truly have the expertise they claim. Rule 702 also properly prevents attorneys from shopping for outlier and hired gun connoisseurs, given that there is no objective way for a jury to determine whether an experience-based expert's views are correct or representative of other experts in the field. Therefore, in the context of connoisseur testimony, courts should either replace adversarial experts with a panel of nonpartisan experts, or only allow an adversarial expert to testify if his conclusions are consistent with those of a nonpartisan advisory panel.
23 Oct 2012
TL;DR: Bernstein this article provides a compelling survey of the history and background of Lochner v. New York, which invalidated a state law limiting work hours and became the leading precedent contending that novel economic regulations were unconstitutional.
Abstract: In this timely reevaluation of an infamous Supreme Court decision, David E. Bernstein provides a compelling survey of the history and background of Lochner v. New York. This 1905 decision invalidated a state law limiting work hours and became the leading precedent contending that novel economic regulations were unconstitutional. Sure to be controversial, "Rehabilitating Lochner" argues that despite the decision's reputation, it was well-grounded in precedent - and that modern constitutional jurisprudence owes at least as much to the limited-government ideas of Lochner proponents as to the more expansive vision of its Progressive opponents. Tracing the influence of this decision through subsequent battles over segregation laws, sex discrimination, civil liberties, and more, "Rehabilitating Lochner" argues not only that the court acted reasonably in Lochner, but that Lochner and like-minded cases have been widely misunderstood and unfairly maligned ever since.
•30 Apr 2020
TL;DR: In this paper, the fundamental properties of soft x-rays and extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation are discussed and their applications in a wide variety of fields, including EUV lithography for semiconductor chip manufacture and soft X-ray biomicroscopy.
Abstract: This self-contained, comprehensive book describes the fundamental properties of soft x-rays and extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation and discusses their applications in a wide variety of fields, including EUV lithography for semiconductor chip manufacture and soft x-ray biomicroscopy. The author begins by presenting the relevant basic principles such as radiation and scattering, wave propagation, diffraction, and coherence. He then goes on to examine a broad range of phenomena and applications. The topics covered include EUV lithography, biomicroscopy, spectromicroscopy, EUV astronomy, synchrotron radiation, and soft x-ray lasers. He also provides a great deal of useful reference material such as electron binding energies, characteristic emission lines and photo-absorption cross-sections. The book will be of great interest to graduate students and researchers in engineering, physics, chemistry, and the life sciences. It will also appeal to practicing engineers involved in semiconductor fabrication and materials science.
TL;DR: In the context of terrorism and analogous risks, the legal system frequently responds to probability neglect, resulting in regulation that might be unjustified or even counterproductive as mentioned in this paper. But public fear is itself a cost and it is associated with many other costs, in the form of ripple effects produced by fear.
Abstract: When strong emotions are involved, people tend to focus on the badness of the outcome, rather than on the probability that the outcome will occur. The resulting “probability neglect” helps to explain excessive reactions to low-probability risks of catastrophe. Terrorists show a working knowledge of probability neglect, producing public fear that might greatly exceed the discounted harm. As a result of probability neglect, people often are far more concerned about the risks of terrorism than about statistically larger risks that they confront in ordinary life. In the context of terrorism and analogous risks, the legal system frequently responds to probability neglect, resulting in regulation that might be unjustified or even counterproductive. But public fear is itself a cost, and it is associated with many other costs, in the form of “ripple effects” produced by fear. As a normative matter, government should reduce even unjustified fear, if the benefits of the response can be shown to outweigh the costs.
01 Jul 2002
TL;DR: The Likelihood Ratio Revisited: A Demonstration of the Method of Forensic Speaker Identification is presented in this paper, where the authors present a forensic speaker identification method based on forensic phonetic parameters.
Abstract: Introduction. Why Voices are Difficult to Discriminate Forensically. Forensic Phonetic Parameters. Expressing the Outcome. Characterizing Forensic Speaker Identification. The Human Vocal Tract and the Production and Description of Speech Sounds. Phonemics. Speech Acoustics. Speech Perception. What is a Voice? The Likelihood Ratio Revisited: A Demonstration of the Method. Summary and Envoi.
TL;DR: This essay examines attempts to use science to study science: specifically, bias in the interpretation and use of empirical research findings, and examines theory and research on a range of cognitive and motivational mechanisms for bias.
Abstract: The latter half of this century has seen an erosion in the perceived legitimacy of science as an impartial means of finding truth. Many research topics are the subject of highly politicized dispute; indeed, the objectivity of the entire discipline of psychology has been called into question. This essay examines attempts to use science to study science: specifically, bias in the interpretation and use of empirical research findings. I examine theory and research on a range of cognitive and motivational mechanisms for bias. Interestingly, not all biases are normatively proscribed; biased interpretations are defensible under some conditions, so long as those conditions are made explicit. I consider a variety of potentially corrective mechanisms, evaluate prospects for collective rationality, and compare inquisitorial and adversarial models of science.
TL;DR: The authors argues that co-production, the simultaneous production of knowledge and social order, provides a more satisfying conceptual framework than controversy for understanding the relationship between science and society, and the scholar's role in that relationship.
Abstract: In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that work in the social studies of science and technology can be appropriated, or consciously deployed, to serve political ends. Correspondingly, pressure has risen on scholars in this field to choose sides in controversies involving science and technology. This paper argues that `co-production' — the simultaneous production of knowledge and social order — provides a more satisfying conceptual framework than `controversy' for understanding the relationship between science and society, and the scholar's role in that relationship. Political engagement is better achieved through reflexive, critical scholarship than through identification with apparent `winners' or `losers' in well-defined but contingent controversies. Reflexivity is especially desirable when selecting sites for research, styles of explanation, and methods of articulating normative positions.