Daubert Vs Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals: Peer Review

Question 1: Compare and contrast peer reviews and technical reviews.

Reviewers play a significant role in scholarly publications. Peer reviews support the validation of research, institutes a way by which it can be assessed, and increases interaction opportunities within research groups. Regardless of criticism, peer review is a commonly recognized technique for research authentication. A peer review is typically conducted by an experienced group of peers that share similar vested interest amongst the reviewers. The assigned peers perform reviews of appropriate rigor and detail of pertinent functional elements including examination of content, identification of issues that potentially hinder achievement of objectives, and recognize and correct

opportunities for improvement. The peer review technique is essential to scholarly research. It is a method of revealing research developments and findings to the examination of others who are experts in similar fields.
A technical review is similar to a peer review because both reviews are intended to ensure effectiveness. However, a technical review is generally conducted by external organizations as an independent assessment. Commonly, a technical review is directed by a trained representative or can be led by a technical expert. A technical expert can be defined as “a person educated, skilled, or experienced in the mechanical arts, applied sciences, or related crafts” (Icove, De Haan, & Haynes, 2013, p. 4). Technical reviews provide a controlled and systematic approach to reviewing content to determine effectiveness and content.
References
Icove, D. J., De Haan, J. D., & Haynes, G. A. (2013). Forensic fire scene reconstruction
(3rd ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Question 2: Identify one court decision that has influenced fire scene investigations, and briefly discuss specifically what it has affected.

One court decision that has influenced fire scene investigations was Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. “In the case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), the Court placed the responsibility on a trial judge to ensure that expert testimony was not only relevant but also reliable” (Icove, De Haan, & Haynes, 2013, p. 19). With regards to scene investigations, the permissibility of expert science and professional opinions are currently more admissible in a court of law than in historical cases. The acceptance of fire investigation has placed more of the burden on professional testaments based on scientific facts rather than information that is simply experienced based. The Daubert criterion is a foundation for evaluating the permissibility of scientific expert testimony and includes testing, peer review and publication, error rates and professional standards, and general acceptance. The testability criterion decides if there is truth of falseness to the concept, method, or practice. Another phase of the Daubert criterion is to determine if the concept, method, or practice has been peer reviewed or publicized. The third stage includes identified error rates and professional standards and takes in account the compliance with current standards and the maintenance of those

standards. The final Daubert criterion is general acceptance. This segment of criteria questions if the practice is generally accepted within the public.

References
Icove, D. J., De Haan, J. D., & Haynes, G. A. (2013). Forensic fire scene reconstruction
(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Question 3: Compare and contrast inductive and deductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning is a rational process that can be utilized when working from specific observations to more expansive generalities and theories. Investigators begin with specific observations and opinions and develop a theoretical hypothesis. Inductive reasoning is sometimes referred to as the “bottom-up” technique because investigators start from a specific experience and progress to more generalizations. Even if all the facts in a statement are true inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Inductive reasoning is based on “the process by which hypotheses are developed based on observable or known facts and the training, experience, knowledge and expertise of the observer” (Icove, De Haan, & Haynes, 2013, p. 3).
The opposite of inductive reasoning is deductive reasoning, a rational process in which a conclusion is determined based on multiple grounds of previously known evidences that are presumed to be factual.

When an investigator works from a more broad-spectrum of information to more detailed information is often referred to as the “top-down” approach since investigators can begin at the top and start with a wide range of information and work their way down to a more specific assumption. It is possible to come to a reasonable conclusion even if all the evidences are not accurate. If the evidences are inaccurate, the conclusion may be logical, but it may also be false.

References

Icove, D. J., De Haan, J. D., & Haynes, G. A. (2013). Forensic fire scene reconstruction

(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Question 4: Explain the development of working

hypothesis.
A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is a preconceived notion and is temporarily accepted as a basis for further research with the expectation that a justifiable theory will be generated, even if in the end the hypothesis fails. It is an explanation of which one believes to be the circumstantial solution; it will be tested and become the foundation to build a case. The method in which a research hypothesis is developed is critical since a hypothesis provides the focal point for research. The main components of a working hypothesis include: identify the need, outline the problem, gather data, examine the data, develop a working hypothesis, and test the working hypotheses. Recognizing the need can consist of response to loss, protection of scene, and evaluation of conditions. In addition, it is crucial to determine future improvements to protect and prevent similar events from reoccurring. A systematic investigative approach will support and assist with defining the problem. Data collection can be used as a foundation for discussion and decisions regarding facts and information. Knowledge, experience, and training all play a major role to the method used for analyzation of the data. A working hypothesis can be defined as “A supposition or conjecture put forward to account for certain facts, and used as a basis for further investigation by which it may be proved or disproved” (Icove, De Haan, & Haynes, 2013, p. 6). Once a conclusion is reached based on previously known facts it is necessary to test the hypothesis. Finally, a final hypothesis is can be reached with a level of confidence and then it is necessary to document.
References
Icove, D. J., De Haan, J. D., & Haynes, G. A. (2013). Forensic fire scene reconstruction
(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Question 5: Discuss alternatives to the scientific method.
When encountered with a challenging case, the scientific method is a strategic method to rely upon to obtain information and data. The use of the scientific method is largely recognized in a research and investigation setting. Investigators, whom normally would question an investigation using a alternative approach, would be more apt to trust an investigation when the scientific approach is utilized. However, the scientific method is not completely free from disadvantages. One major limitation is the inability to re-create a “real world” scenario. An alternate method to the scientific method that practices logic is abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning generally starts with insufficient explanations and ensues to the most probable justification based on the given information. Though it is often incomplete, abductive reasoning is a decision-making process that is deemed to be best scenario for the information presented at the present time. For instance, abductive reasoning encompasses the process of reasoning to the best explanations for an occurrence. “Modern –day applications of abductive reasoning include artificial intelligence, fault tree diagnosis, and automated planning” (Icove, De Haan, & Haynes, 2013, p. 13). Abductive reasoning allows an investigator to suggest the most apparent hypothesis, and is possibly the simplest hypothesis and is a great starting point for an investigation.

References
Icove, D. J., De Haan, J. D., & Haynes, G. A. (2013). Forensic fire scene reconstruction
(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Question 6: Select one of the benefits of using the scientific method, and describe why it is beneficial.
One major benefit of using the scientific method is its trusted reliability and consistency. The scientific method is based on a systematic approach and can be heavily relied upon in fire and explosion investigations. Using the scientific method investigators can create a hypothesis based on evidence and once that hypothesis is tested and confirmed an expert opinion or conclusion is created. The scientific method concentrates on the concept that the information and interpretations are based on what is quantifiable and observable. All information is comprised from direct surveillance and investigation. Therefore, a hypothesis is not generated from unfounded information or unconfirmed accounts. “Most important expert testimony in fire and explosion cases has come to rely more heavily on opinions formed using the scientific method” (Icove, De Haan, & Haynes, 2013, p. 13). In order to credit the scientific method approach it is important to conduct a thorough investigation and protect a scene to ensure that pertinent evidence is untainted until it can be collected and recorded. The condition of evidence when it is collected can affect the success of a case. The preservation of a scene starts with the arrival of first responders at the scene and concludes when the scene is released from custody.

References
Icove, D. J., De Haan, J. D., & Haynes, G. A. (2013). Forensic fire scene reconstruction
(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.