If they haven't, my guess is that will mean some injured plaintiffs were denied their day in court. The collaborative effort between the two professors, one from the humanities and one from the sciences, is part of a growing emphasis at UCR related to both the scientific and ethical issues involved in the environment's impact on human health. Eastmond, an associate professor of cell biology, studies the effects of human exposure to toxic chemicals used in agriculture and industry. His research involves monitoring the chromosomal changes occurring in the cells of people who smoke cigarettes, manufacture benzene or spray pesticides. Cranor's task is to look at the judges' reasoning, and why they allow some kinds of scientific evidence, and exclude other kinds.
Some judges are fair.
Others clearly misunderstand the science, and make incorrect rulings as a result. Cranor cited a case in which a supervisor ordered an employee to clean up a volatile organic compound. The employee suffered severe bronchial problems immediately afterward and eventually quit his job and sued for his injuries. A federal district court rejected his lawsuit because he could not provide exact measurements of his level of exposure. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.