Ä¢¹½tv

How can stakeholders confront environmental disputes with rigor and clarity in complex, high-stakes litigation where facts must withstand the scrutiny of science and law? 

In today's climate of heightened environmental accountability, peer-reviewed scientific studies often anchor high-stakes environmental impact litigation — but what happens when their conclusions can't be reproduced?

A growing wave of , stemming from errors, bias, and even misconduct, underscores the urgent need to thoroughly evaluate the science at the heart of environmental lawsuits. When flawed or irreproducible research is introduced as evidence, it not only jeopardizes the outcome of individual cases but can result in inefficient allocation of restoration efforts, failed environmental recovery and erosion of public trust in science and the legal process.

Evaluating the reliability of scientific studies in environmental litigation is complex, highly technical, and case specific, whether addressing soil contamination, water or air pollution, or natural resource damages. Scientists must combine domain knowledge with rigorous data analysis to review raw data, test results, and assumptions. Drawing on decades of experience, Ä¢¹½tv scientists use advanced methodologies to identify errors or biases in existing reports and produce reliable, objective, accessible expert reports and testimony. Key focus areas include forensic data analysis — the examination of the reliability of scientific data and analysis  — and clear communication of complex findings.

How does the reproducibility crisis impact environmental litigation?

Growing attention to the "" — where research scientists fail to achieve the same outcomes as peer-reviewed scientific studies using different data — has raised concerns about scientific reliability. Closely related is the "reproducibility crisis," which occurs when researchers cannot achieve the same outcomes using the original data and methods. In a , more than 70% of scientists reported that they had tried and failed to reproduce the published experimental findings of other researchers.

Peer review of scientific studies rarely requires verification of results and attempts to reproduce outcomes are frequently complicated by a lack of methodological transparency and access to full datasets. This can lead reviewers to make assumptions and otherwise render full verification of the validity of the findings challenging or impossible. The resulting ambiguity around the reliability of published research has wide-reaching impacts for the scientific community as a whole and for high-impact activities like environmental litigation.

Using these tools to reconstruct and evaluate computational workflows in environmental studies can identify undocumented data edits, consequential forgotten data, overlooked values, and unsupported analytical choices that inflate or skew key takeaways.

How does expert forensic data analysis help make sense of complex evidence?

Forensic data analysis involves re-examining raw data, scrutinizing analytical pipelines, and asking the critical "why" at each decision point. In modern environmental studies, data, code, and detailed analytical methods for any given study are frequently available and well-documented, but when these details are not available Ä¢¹½tv may reconstruct the methodology, much like reconstructing a car accident or crime scene from the evidence available. Ä¢¹½tv's teams, for example, have reconstructed computational workflows using raw inputs and fitting statistical models to obtain results, often identifying discrepancies or biases in the original analyses that might otherwise go unnoticed.

When important decisions depend upon one or a few publications, reports, or analyses, it is best practice to confirm the work is reliable. Forensic data scientists are frequently asked to discern whether software errors, undocumented data transformations, or ambiguous methodological descriptions have compromised reproducibility and whether a study's analytical choices align with scientific standards and the specifics of the case at hand. This process is especially crucial in cases where data selection, normalization, or algorithmic choices can materially affect the outcome of disputes. 

For example, forensic data scientists can leverage scripted tools such as R and Python for exploratory data analysis, visualizing and summarizing data trends and outliers; statistical analysis, including hypothesis testing, regression, time series, and mixed model analysis; spatial analysis, mapping, and examining spatial patterns in environmental data; and building and testing predictive environmental models.

Using these tools to reconstruct and evaluate computational workflows in environmental studies can help identify undocumented data edits, consequential forgotten data, overlooked values, and unsupported analytical choices that inflate or skew key takeaways. In many environmental contexts, such as natural resource damage assessment (NRDA), results from small-scale studies, such as laboratory studies or field trials, are extrapolated across large areas. Extrapolation can multiply small errors in a way that could dramatically underestimate injury, resulting in insufficient compensation or overestimate injury, causing responsible parties to overcompensate for injury — highlighting how simple mistakes can dramatically distort results.

What role do technical expert witnesses play in disputes?

In litigation and arbitration, finders of fact must often grapple with highly technical evidence and competing expert opinions. It falls to scientists and engineers to render complex facts both accessible and compelling.

Expert witnesses must translate intricate analyses into plain language, guiding judges, juries, and arbitrators through the scientific rationale underlying each conclusion through expert reports, demonstrative exhibits, or oral testimony. Subject-matter expertise and the ability to convey the nuances of scientific uncertainty and the limitations inherent in any analysis are equally important.

The stakes can be significant. Substantive errors uncovered in expert reports or published research may form the basis for challenging an opposing expert's qualifications or the reliability of their opinions. In some cases, these findings can lead to summary judgment or exclusion of opposing testimony; in others, they become pivotal elements in settlement negotiations or trial outcomes.

By constructing a transparent, reproducible, and persuasive narrative that meets the highest standards of science, environmental and forensic data analysis experts help stakeholders navigate the complexities of environmental disputes with confidence and clarity.