A couple of simple lessons emerge from this metaphor. The first is that while the greater community can expect logic and consistency from older, textbook science, it should not be surprised to find that cutting-edge science is shaky and idiosyncratic. The second is that scientists should not be surprised to find that when their preliminary research enters into the arenas of policy and law, they can no longer expect to conduct it in isolation, absent intense social scrutiny. Neither group should be surprised by conflict and misunderstanding when those trained in different epistemologies interact. Lawyers are often dismayed by the untidiness of the leading edge of science.
Scientists are equally amazed at how arbitrary and utilitarian are the foundations of the law.
The fundamental problem in the checkered history of interaction between attorneys and scientists is the common misconception that the regulation of human affairs and the discovery of the workings of the natural world should proceed along the same logical pathways. For a specific example of how this problem can play out, consider the issue of lying. Attorneys and the courts assume as a matter of course that people will make false statements. The result is that opposing lawyers spend a good deal of time in cross examination attempting to discover false testimony. Lying is the great enemy of any communal search for the truth.