Print this page"Junk Science," Geologists and the Judicial Process
WEIMER, ROBERT J.
"Junk science" is a frequently debated subject in relation to court testimony, and is defined as material introduced which can be demonstrated by peer review to be incorrect. In a trial, once expert witnesses are qualified to testify, no clear-cut procedure is allowed for introduction of the peer review process, as commonly used by scientists, to guide non-technical judges or juries as to the quality and acceptance of scientific evidence.
Do geologists contribute to courtroom "junk science?" Absolutely! I was involved in a trial to determine the "fair market value" of mineral rights condemned under the Denver International Airport (DIA). I give only 3 of many examples in the trial of "junk science" presented by City of Denver expert witnesses.
1. The Muddy (J) Sandstone, petroleum productive sandstone within and surrounding the airport, was called a deep water marine sandstone deposited by sediment gravity flows. Peer-reviewed publications describe root zones and paleosols indicating that the interpretation was incorrect.
2. Undeveloped land within DIA was classed as wildcat acreage even though no drillable tract was greater than 2 miles from production and some tracts offset production.
3. Two plugged wells were interpreted as water-bearing based on low resistivity log measurements despite the fact that DIA is known to be part of the basin center petroleum occurrences with no water legs identified in fields or pools.
A challenge to scientists and professional societies is how to assist the courts, and for that matter the news media and legislators, decide how to handle "junk science" in our technology-based society.