ABSTRACT
This chapter deals with some tentative conclusions showing how different ways of ‘posing the problem’ each have relevant implications for the arduous challenge of finding a just measure of science. Attempts to understand breakdowns in collaboration between law and science often take refuge in metaphors, even comparing these to the difficulties of human relationships. For science or other technical evidence to influence legal outcomes it has to be turned into proof in ways compatible with the many specialized rules of procedure and evidence which govern legal processes. Thus, as rightly emphasized by the trial pathology approach, one way of explaining why law’s truth differs from that which would be produced by a more specifically scientific enquiry depends on appreciating the procedures and fact-finding methods which characterize legal institutions. A central goal of law is that of creating a framework of governance; rules prescribing legal conduct must be actually capable of being followed.
