Science in the interests of justice

03 - 04 October 2023 09:00 - 17:00 Online Free
Science in the Interests of Justice photograph

This meeting brought together leading scientists and prominent members of the legal community from the UK and USA to explore approaches used by courts in their consideration, evaluation, and management of scientific evidence and expert witnesses.

The conference considered scientific evidence that appears in court today as well as emerging areas of science, including neuroscience, human enhancement and climate change attribution, that may appear in the courts in the coming years.

The conference was part of the Science and Law programmes at the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society. Find out more about the Royal Society's Science and the Law programme and the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Science, Technology and Law.

The conference was led by:

  • David Baltimore, President Emeritus and Judge Shirley Hufstedler Professor of Biology, the California Institute of Technology
  • Lord Anthony Hughes of Ombersley PC, former judge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
  • Dr Julie Maxton CBE, Executive Director of the Royal Society
  • Dr Anne-Marie Mazza, Senior Director of the National Academy of Sciences
  • Judge David Tatel, US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
  • Dame Anne Rafferty DBE, former Lady Justice of Appeal of England and Wales

It is hoped that this will be the first in a series of joint international Science and Law meetings in the coming years.

View the recording

Click watch on YouTube to view the full video playlist.

Interested in a career at the interface between science and the law?

The Royal Society hosted a satellite event exploring the career opportunities within science and the law. The workshop featured talks from scientists, professionals in the police force and lawyers, highlighting the mobility between the two sectors and the pathway into their current careers, followed by a panel discussion and Q&A session.

Organisers

  • Lady Justice Anne Rafferty

    Dame Anne Rafferty

    Dame Anne Rafferty read Law at Sheffield which in 2005 awarded her an Ll.D, was called by Gray’s Inn and began pupillage in 1974. She became a QC in 1990 and a Recorder in 1991.  She is married to His Honour Brian John Barker CBE QC, the former Recorder of London, and has three daughters.

    She was Head of Chambers at 4, Brick Court, (now 9, Bedford Row) 1994-2000.  At the Criminal Bar Association she sat on the Committee 1986-91, was Secretary 1989-91, *Vice-Chairman 1993-95, and *Chairman 1995-97. She was *Chairman of the Bar Conference 1992. She was the only barrister on the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice 1991-93. On the Pigot Committee 1988-89 she wrote the recommendation now reflected in video-recorded interviews and subsequently of the evidence (in advance of trial) of vulnerable witnesses.

    She was *Presiding Judge of the South Eastern Circuit 2003 – 2006.
    She was a member of the Sentencing Council 2009-2012.
    She was made a High Court Judge in 2000 and a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2011.
    She was de facto *Chairman of the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee from 2012-17.
    She became Chairman of the Judicial College in August 2014.
    In November 2015 she was installed as *Chancellor of the University of Sheffield.
    In 2017 she was appointed Vice Chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission. 
    * = first woman

  • Judge David S Tatel

    Judge David S Tatel

    David S Tatel was appointed to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in October 1994. He previously served as Director of the National Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare during the Carter Administration.

    In private practice, Judge Tatel founded and headed Hogan & Hartson's education practice until his appointment by President Clinton to the DC Circuit. Judge Tatel previously co-chaired the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Science, Technology, and Law, and he is a member of the American Philosophical Society. Judge Tatel is also a member of the Committee on Science for Judges, a collaboration by CSTL and the Federal Judicial Center, working on the update and revision of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Fourth Edition.

  • Anthony Lord Hughes of Ombersley

    Anthony Hughes, Lord Hughes of Ombersley

    After studying at Van Mildert College, Durham, Lord Hughes briefly lectured in law at Durham and Queen Mary College London before going to the Bar in Birmingham chambers in 1971.

    He took silk in 1990, having been for a few years before that as a Recorder (part time judge). From 1997 until 2018 he was a full-time judge, successively in the Family Division, the Queen’s Bench Division, the Court of Appeal (where he was Vice President of the Criminal Division) and the Supreme Court.

    Lord Hughes retired under the standard age rules in 2018. He is currently a Judicial Commissioner for the Investigatory Powers Commission and Chairman of the public inquiry into the apparent Novichok poisoning in the Salisbury area in 2018 that led to the death of Dawn Sturgess. He is also highly involved in the Royal Society’s Science and the law programme.

    He currently lives in Worcestershire, where he is an active charity trustee. He attempts to remain approximately sane through efforts in the garden, bellringing, and veteran rowing. He is married to a former biochemist, and they have two grown-up children.

  • Dr Anne-Marie Mazza

    Dr Anne-Marie Mazza

    Anne-Marie Mazza is senior director of the Committee on Science, Technology, and Law (CSTL) at the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. As founding director of CSTL, she has led numerous influential studies including:

    • The Emerging Field of Human Neural Organoids, Transplants, and Chimeras
    • Securing the Vote
    • Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research
    • Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification
    • Positioning Synthetic Biology to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century
    • Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward
    • Science and Security in A Post 9/11 World.

    Dr Mazza was the US Academies staff lead on the 2015, 2018, and 2023 International Summits on Human Genome Editing and currently serves as the study director for the joint NAS-Federal Judicial Center Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which is provided to all federal judges. From 2021-2022, she was detailed to the White House as Executive Director of the President's Council of Advisors of Science and Technology (PCAST) where she established several initiatives on semiconductors, public health, extreme weather, and the bioeconomy.

    She is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr Mazza received a BA, MA, and PhD, from the George Washington University.

  • Dr Julie Maxton DBE

    Dr Julie Maxton DBE is the Executive Director of the Royal Society, the first woman in 350 years to hold the post. Before taking up her position at the Royal Society in 2011 Julie was Registrar at the University of Oxford, the first woman in 550 years in the role.

    She is an Honorary Fellow of University College Oxford, a Bencher of the Middle Temple, a Freeman of the Goldsmith’s Company and a Board member of Sense about Science. In the past she has also been on the Boards of the Alan Turing Institute, Blavatnik School of Government in Oxford, Haberdasher Aske’s School (Elstree), Engineering UK, Charities Aid Foundation and The Faraday Institute.

    Originally trained as a barrister at the Middle Temple, Julie combined a career as a practising lawyer with that of an academic, holding a number of senior academic positions, including those of Deputy Vice Chancellor, Professor and Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Academic and other recognition Julie has received include a CBE (2017) and Honorary Degrees from the Universities of Huddersfield, Warwick, Canterbury, Hull and Bristol.

    She is the author of several books and numerous articles concerned with trusts, equity, commercial and property law.

  • David Baltimore

    Dr David Baltimore ForMemRS

    David Baltimore is President Emeritus and Judge Shirley Hufstedler Professor of Biology at Caltech. Awarded the Nobel Prize in 1975 for research in virology, Baltimore has profoundly influenced national science policy on such issues as recombinant DNA research and the AIDS epidemic. 

    Dr Baltimore graduated from Swarthmore College with a degree in chemistry. He took graduate courses at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and received his PhD from Rockefeller University. He was a postdoctoral fellow at MIT and Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He was a Research Associate at The Salk Institute in 1965 and joined the faculty at MIT in 1968. He has served as Director of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, President of Rockefeller University, and President of Caltech.

    He was awarded the 1999 National Medal of Science, 2000 Warren Alpert Foundation Prize and 2021 Lasker-Koshland Special Achievement Award in Medical Science. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a foreign member of the Royal Society and the French Academy of Sciences. He has been President and Chair of the American Association of the Advancement of Science.

Schedule

09:00-09:05 Welcome from the President of the Royal Society
Sir Adrian Smith

Sir Adrian Smith

President, the Royal Society

09:05-09:10 Welcome from the President of the National Academy of Sciences
Dr Marcia McNutt

Dr Marcia McNutt

President, the National Academy of Sciences, US

Chair

Judge Kathleen O'Malley

Judge Kathleen O'Malley

Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, US

09:15-09:35 A view from the UK judiciary
Anthony Hughes, Lord Hughes of Ombersley

Anthony Hughes, Lord Hughes of Ombersley

Former Judge of the Supreme Court, UK

09:35-09:45 A view from the US judiciary
Judge David S Tatel

Judge David S Tatel

US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, US

09:45-09:50 Comments from the Chair
Judge Kathleen O'Malley

Judge Kathleen O'Malley

Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, US

09:55-10:30 Panel discussion
Anthony Hughes, Lord Hughes of Ombersley

Anthony Hughes, Lord Hughes of Ombersley

Former Judge of the Supreme Court, UK

Judge David S Tatel

Judge David S Tatel

US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, US

Professor Niamh NicDaeid FRSE, University of Dundee, UK

Professor Niamh NicDaeid FRSE, University of Dundee, UK

Professor Thomas D Albright

Professor Thomas D Albright

Vision Center Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, CA, US

Chair

Professor Dame Sue Black DBE FRSE, The Baroness Black of Strome, Lancaster, UK

11:05-11:35 Forensic science – our past, present and future

This presentation will provide an overview of forensic science and the principles behind its role within the justice systems. It will explore some of the opportunities and limitations of the use of science from the crime scene to the court room and the, sometimes, challenging positioning of emerging technologies particularly as we move further and faster into a digitally connected world.

Critical aspects such as the development of data sets, including that generated by citizens, the rise of open science, the importance of ethics and the necessity of clear communication of science across the interdisciplinary landscape, will be amongst the range of topics touched upon.

Professor Niamh NicDaeid FRSE, University of Dundee, UK

Professor Niamh NicDaeid FRSE, University of Dundee, UK

11:35-12:00 DNA mixture evidence: an example of the process to determine reliability

The molecular biology and chemistry behind the generation of DNA profiles is robust. Sensitivity of detection has increased substantially over the years, such that only a few cells' worth of DNA can be sufficient to obtain interpretable data. However, the quality and quantity of biological evidence can be limiting - especially so with complex mixture evidence. Interpretation of mixtures requires the consideration of several aspects, many of which are based on generally accepted principles, supported by the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and demonstrated by on-site, internal validation studies conducted by a laboratory's technical staff. These 'aspects' include the results' scientific defensibility, validity, uncertainty, limitations, transparency, documentation, disclosure, bias, error rates vs error, in addition to the education and training gaps of those involved in collecting, measuring and interpreting results.

Although there is no standard approach for mixture interpretation, there are accepted practices within an approach. If these practices are followed, results can be scientifically defensible. However, misapplications have occurred, primarily due to technology transfer gaps, training limitations, misunderstandings, bias, transparency and quality assurance issues. These limitations pose challenges for the legal system to determine the validity of a methodology and the reliability of results presented in a report, case file, and/or during testimony.

Forensic DNA analyses can be arcane for non-scientists, but there are various aspects that can be scrutinised to assist the trier of fact and their gate keeper responsibility to determine the robustness of the science and expertise of scientists. All science has limitations. It is incumbent upon practitioners to define, understand, and communicate these limitations so results are not overstated (as well as not overly understated). DNA mixture evidence from the laboratory to the courtroom is a good example for showcasing aspects important for assessing the reliability of - or at least gaining confidence in - the results presented.

Professor Bruce Budowle

Professor Bruce Budowle

University of North Texas, US

12:00-12:25 Voice recognition

Voice recognition is the process by which distinctive characteristics of an individual's speech are used to identify or verify who they are. As lay listeners, humans recognise familiar voices intuitively in an everyday sense and may also find themselves being 'earwitnesses' to a crime, albeit rarely. When carried out by trained practitioners using specialised methodologies and tools, voice recognition, comparing often unknown speech samples, can play an important role in investigative and forensic contexts.

This talk will consider the landscape of forensic voice recognition, encompassing auditory analysis by trained listeners, acoustic-phonetic measurements of perceptually salient features, and automatic speaker recognition using signal processing and modelling algorithms that are statistical or based on deep neural networks. The Bayesian likelihood ratio framework will be critically examined as a means of evaluating the strength of evidence using any voice analysis methodology. The importance of validation of the prevalent and emerging approaches, to understand their limitations and to provide reliable and transparent reports to the courts, will be discussed.

Additionally, the varying acceptance of voice recognition evidence in different parts of the world will be explored. Anticipating the new challenges posed by machine-created spoofed speech, this talk also will reflect on the risks, mitigations and, more optimistically, emerging opportunities afforded by using both human- and machine-based analysis.

Dr Anil Alexander

Dr Anil Alexander

Oxford Wave Research

Chair

Professor Dame Sue Black DBE FRSE, The Baroness Black of Strome, Lancaster, UK

13:25-13:50 Bayesian AI

This talk will outline advances in the technology of probabilistic modelling and inference over the last 40 years, from Bayesian networks to open-universe probabilistic programs. Bayesian networks are already a somewhat familiar tool in legal reasoning, although they are somewhat restricted in their ability to express general knowledge and to reason about the existence and identity of objects. Open-universe probabilistic programs, on the other hand, build on the syntax and semantics of first-order logic to provide a general way to answer essentially any answerable question.

Professor Stuart Russell

Professor Stuart Russell

University of California, Berkeley

13:50-14:15 Forensic science in a virtual reality

Crime scene visualisation has evolved significantly from sketches on paper. Scenes can now be documented digitally, even with panoramic imaging. Advances in imaging technology, including 3D recording devices and virtual reality, hold tremendous opportunities for visualising and presenting crime scenes. However, they also present potentially significant pitfalls. The validation of imaging data collected at the crime scene and understanding measurements within and associated with the 3D models generated from these images are pivotal for avoiding misconceptions if this evolving technology is implemented.

This talk will explore the capability of state-of-the-art commercially available technologies to digitalise the scene of a crime and visualise it via immersive head-mounted displays, focusing on the issues relating to evidence acquisition and limitations of current viewing methods. The talk will also discuss potential future technologies.

Vincenzo Rinaldi

Vincenzo Rinaldi

University of Dundee, UK

14:15-14:40 Evaluating digital evidence

Decisions impacting justice have become increasingly reliant on science and technology, motivating advances in digital forensic science. Ongoing efforts in this field include studying scientific foundations and error mitigation analysis. However, this gradual adaptation is not keeping pace with rapidly increasing volume, variety, velocity, distribution, structural intricacy, and complexity of digital data which are strongly impacting the institutions responsible for justice.

This talk introduces four initiatives that address the challenge of evaluating and expressing uncertainty of digital evidence: 1) The Digital Investigation Vulnerability Taxonomy, which covers the detection and mitigation of problems, 2) The C-Scale, which helps standardize how evaluative opinions are formed and expressed, 3) The National Institute of Standards and Technology's Artifact Catalog, which collects standard reference data at the speed and rate of change in this area by crowdsourcing expertise and 4) The Cyber Sleuth Science Lab, which educates the future generation of practitioners to deal with the challenges of digital evidence and artificial intelligence

14:40-15:10 Panel discussion - research gaps
Professor Niamh NicDaeid FRSE, University of Dundee, UK

Professor Niamh NicDaeid FRSE, University of Dundee, UK

Professor Bruce Budowle

Professor Bruce Budowle

University of North Texas, US

Vincenzo Rinaldi

Vincenzo Rinaldi

University of Dundee, UK

Professor Stuart Russell

Professor Stuart Russell

University of California, Berkeley

Dr Anil Alexander

Dr Anil Alexander

Oxford Wave Research

15:40-15:45 Chair's introduction
Lord Justice Birss

Lord Justice Birss

Deputy Head of Civil Justice

15:45-15:55 An introduction to likelihood ratios

This session will introduce the issues of importance when using likelihood ratios in a legal context, and will consider other approaches to reasoning about uncertainty. The speakers will consider the scientist's role in provision of information to help reduce uncertainty while not trespassing into the role of the factfinder, the importance of transparency, the impact of the relevance and adequacy of data available to the scientist, and of avoiding the fallacy of the transposed conditional.

While the scientific issues are universal, jurisdictional differences affect whether and how such evidence is presented. The session will touch on what has been observed in court and consider future challenges.

Professor Gill Tully CBE

Professor Gill Tully CBE

King's College London, UK

15:55-16:10 Discussion

Chair

Lady Justice Anne Rafferty

Dame Anne Rafferty

16:15-17:30 Panel discussion
Professor Thomas D Albright

Professor Thomas D Albright

Vision Center Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, CA, US

Professor Gill Tully CBE

Professor Gill Tully CBE

King's College London, UK

Hon Barbara J Rothstein

Hon Barbara J Rothstein

United States District Court, Western District of Washington, US

Mr Justice Richard Meade

Mr Justice Richard Meade

High Court Judge of England and Wales, in charge of intellectual property

Professor Lucina Hackman

Professor Lucina Hackman

University of Dundee, UK

Dame Victoria Sharp DBE

Dame Victoria Sharp DBE

President of the King's Bench Division

09:25-09:35 Introduction to the session
Professor Alta Charo

Professor Alta Charo

University of Wisconsin–Madison, US

Sir Robert Francis KC

Sir Robert Francis KC

Honourable Society of the Inner Temple

09:35-09:55 Human genome editing and enhancement

There has been rapid progress over the last few years in developing genome editing techniques to treat patients with genetic disorders, with many clinical trials now in progress. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has licenced the first genome editing treatment that has been deemed both safe and effective: a treatment for sickle cell disease and beta-thalassaemia.

However, these genome editing techniques could also be used for 'enhancement' a concern voiced by many. Fears range from applications that might increase social inequity to the creation of armies of super-soldiers. What might be possible, how and to whom the methods might be applied, and the nature of any likely consequences are all complex topics that require proper thought and not simple, scary headlines.

In this talk, Professor Lovell-Badge will discuss somatic, epigenetic, and heritable changes that could be made by genome editing, and how these could involve anything from conferring an advantage - for example, changing a common allele into an outlier allele - to conferring novel traits - for example, introducing 'designer' genes or those from other species. He will also mention uses for this editing technology that might give unfair advantages in sport, be considered protective (whether for disease resistance, in exploration, or for the military) or - to be very speculative - enhance human evolution.

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge FRS

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge FRS

The Francis Crick Institute

09:55-10:15 Cognitive enhancement: Do drugs work, why are people using them and what are the ethical and societal implications?

There is an increasing use by healthy people of cognitive enhancing drugs or 'smart drugs', including amphetamine salts (Adderall), methylphenidate (Ritalin) and modafinil (Provigil). These are frequently used to increase performance in university exams or at work or even to complete work successfully, particularly if the job involves high risk impacts and also to counteract the effects of jetlag or sleep deprivation leading to fatigue. Published studies from Professor Sahakian's laboratory and articles published by others have shown that these drugs do improve cognitive performance on some objective tests in healthy people.

While many think that it is easy to distinguish between the use of drugs to treat a diagnosed illness and the use of drugs for enhancement purposes, this may not be so clear. For example, if you are an older person still working and you are competing with people in their 20s (at the optimal level of cognitive performance), is using a drug to restore your cognition back to your younger self restoration or enhancement? Also, while one medical practitioner may decide that the symptoms of poor attention and hyperactivity are sufficiently severe for a diagnosis and pharmacological treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), another clinician may not.

When as a society would we want healthy people to use these drugs? Would we want to use wake promoting drugs, such as modafinil, to keep the military personnel alert during conflict situations or to keep surgeons functioning at their optimal level of performance during late night emergency operations? Healthy people are also microdosing with lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and psilocybin apparently to improve creativity and productivity and to improve mood, although the objective evidence for these beneficial effects is lacking. We also need to consider from a neuroethical perspective, which forms of cognitive enhancement are acceptable, for whom and when, and what methods we should use to improve our cognition and wellbeing as individuals and to flourish as a society.

Professor Barbara Sahakian FMedSci, Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology, University of Cambridge

Professor Barbara Sahakian FMedSci, Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology, University of Cambridge

10:15-10:35 Coma, vegetative state and brain death: the contribution of functional neuroimaging

Disorders of consciousness, including coma, the vegetative state, and the minimally conscious state, are some of the least understood and most ethically troublesome conditions in modern medicine. Decisions to withdraw care focus typically on clinical indicators predicting a poor neurological outcome. No currently accepted clinical measures can determine the likelihood of good functional recovery (allowing sufficient function for independent activities of daily life).

In recent years, rapid technological developments in neuroimaging have provided several new methods for revealing thoughts, actions and intentions based solely on the pattern of activity in the brain. These methods are now employed in many research centres to assess residual brain function, detect consciousness and even to communicate with some clinically non-responsive patients who appear comatose, or in a vegetative, or minimally conscious state.

These emerging technologies have profound implications for clinical care, diagnosis, prognosis, ethics, and medical-legal decision-making after severe brain injury. In this talk, Professor Owen will review some of the latest developments in this field, focussing on how and when these the new tools might be integrated into decisions about withdrawal of care.

Professor Adrian Owen OBE FRSC

Professor Adrian Owen OBE FRSC

Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario, Canada

10:35-10:55 The future of brain interfacing

The era of brain interfaces is approaching. Simple brain interface devices have been used in the clinic for about twenty years, though only in limited contexts. Recent advances have shown that the clinical potential of brain interfacing is immense, including the restoration of lost sensory and motor function and the treatment of a wide range of neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders.

We are also seeing a steep rise in interest from academia, industry, investors, and the public. This interest is further accelerating progress, but also has the potential to create unrealistic expectations for the field. This talk will present a brief view of the present state of brain interfacing and some thoughts on future developments and limitations.

Professor Philip Sabes

Professor Philip Sabes

University of California, San Francisco, US

10:55-11:15 Panel discussion
Professor Barbara Sahakian FMedSci, Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology, University of Cambridge

Professor Barbara Sahakian FMedSci, Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology, University of Cambridge

Professor Philip Sabes

Professor Philip Sabes

University of California, San Francisco, US

Professor Adrian Owen OBE FRSC

Professor Adrian Owen OBE FRSC

Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario, Canada

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge FRS

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge FRS

The Francis Crick Institute

Chair

Judge Jed S Rakoff

Judge Jed S Rakoff

Senior District Judge for New York Southern District, US

11:55-12:15 Memory in the dock

Memory retains a privileged role in the courtroom, and it is difficult to envisage witness evidence that does not, to a greater or lesser degree, rely on the exercise of this faculty. Nevertheless, its privileged status is under challenge, primarily based upon findings from cognitive science.

This talk will provide a brief introduction to the complex structure of human memory and then address a number of key areas where its reliability has come under increasing scrutiny. This will include consideration of potential contamination via post-event misinformation, the relationship between confidence and accuracy, how memory is impacted by time and the potential contribution of witness variables. Professor Dolan will conclude by considering the implications of these findings and how they might impact the weighting attached to memory-based evidence.

Professor Raymond Dolan FMedSci FRS, UCL, UK

Professor Raymond Dolan FMedSci FRS, UCL, UK

12:15-12:35 A human information processing approach to forensics

The value of eyewitness reports for criminal investigation and prosecution is fundamentally tied to accuracy. Recognising that accuracy is rarely patent, can be corrupted by use of suggestive procedures, and that such testimony may have no physical corroboration, the US Supreme Court established in Manson v. Braithwaite (1977) a 'reliability test'. This test reflects simple intuitions about human information processing that are to be weighed by the courts to assess accuracy - hence admissibility - of eyewitness evidence. Since this influential ruling, two important things have happened: (1) new procedures for DNA-based identification have confirmed high rates of wrongful conviction resulting from eyewitness misidentification and (2) science has significantly advanced understanding of the contributions and limitations of sensation and memory in human decisions. In light of this modern science-based understanding, it is clear that the Manson test is insufficient to yield what was intended: a useful estimate of eyewitness accuracy.

This presentation will outline the difficulties of inferring the accuracy of candid human testimony, which is impacted by three factors: uncertainty, bias, and overconfidence. Uncertainty results from manifold sources of noise that plague biological systems for sensation and memory. Biases are born from prior experiences and expectations and called into service to fill informational gaps. The ease of this unwitting perceptual/cognitive completion, in turn, yields exaggerated confidence. This framework highlights alternative approaches to accuracy rooted in the modern sciences of human information processing.

Professor Thomas D Albright

Professor Thomas D Albright

Vision Center Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, CA, US

12:35-13:00 Panel discussion
Professor Raymond Dolan FMedSci FRS, UCL, UK

Professor Raymond Dolan FMedSci FRS, UCL, UK

Professor Thomas D Albright

Professor Thomas D Albright

Vision Center Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, CA, US

Mrs Justice (Bobbie) Cheema-Grubb

Mrs Justice (Bobbie) Cheema-Grubb

King's Bench Division, High Court of England and Wales

14:00-14:10 Introduction from the Chair
Mr Justice Ian Dove

Mr Justice Ian Dove

Judge of the High Court of England and Wales

14:10-14:30 The science behind climate change and its mitigation

The concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing due to anthropogenic emissions, resulting in a range of climate impacts. These impacts are proportional to cumulative emissions, with implications for apportioning responsibility. Preventing 'dangerous interference with the climate system' requires concentrations to be stabilised, leading to the concept of net-zero, which is enshrined in UK law through the Climate Change Act.

This talk will discuss the evidence that this causes global warming, what is needed to achieve net zero and the nature of the evidence that might be used in legal cases.

Professor Eric Wolff FRS

Professor Eric Wolff FRS

University of Cambridge

14:30-14:50 Attribution: from global climate change to individual damaging events

Changes in global temperature can be attributed to specific causes, and this attribution has demonstrated that greenhouse warming has indeed influenced the climate and has revealed by how much. This talk will explain the key concepts behind attribution, including what is known about human-caused changes in rainfall, drought, and extreme events, and the linked impacts such as vegetation dieback, fire and human-caused climate change.

We can now also understand and attribute the causes of individual extreme events - this helps identify whether climate change has changed the likelihood of events occurring and how the impacts of climate change compare to other factors such as human land or water use change. This talk will give examples ranging from scenarios where little or unreliable climate change influence was found, to those showing a substantially increased probability of events, and even to those where an event would have been impossible without human influence. It will also briefly describe the process of Assessments of Climate Change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Gabi Hegerl FRS

Professor Gabi Hegerl FRS

University of Edinburgh, UK

14:50-15:10 Interactions between climate change and air quality in policy and science

Many air pollutants that are subject to international regulations (such as SO2, NO2, NH3, VOC) also influence climate, often through the products of chemical processing in the atmosphere. Probability and associated statistical tests offer ways of quantitatively linking environmental damage, including air pollution, to specific sources, provided that the necessary data can be obtained. This can be extremely useful in civil law cases.

In addition, the design and implementation of net zero policies offers an opportunity to enhance air quality, delivering substantial reductions in air pollutant concentrations and their effects on the environment and human health as a co-benefit.

This talk will describe air pollutants, their interactions with the climate, their effects on the environment. It will also present a range of policy options for improving air quality, touching on the approaches taken in different countries and their differing benefits.

Professor David Fowler CBE FRS, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (Edinburgh Research Station), UK

Professor David Fowler CBE FRS, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (Edinburgh Research Station), UK

15:10-15:30 'What did the law do in the climate crisis, Daddy?' - Market perspectives on climate change

Organisations are looking at how to score well in environmental, social and governance (ESG) rankings, but is ESG a driver for a proper anti-climate change market? Voluntary carbon offset markets dominate the conferences, but are any of them actually pukka and how puny are they? The UK crows about having the world's first 'legally binding' national commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but do the markets care?

In this talk, Professor Mainelli will assess progress and promise on climate change and the carbon markets. He asserts that green markets and green finance in greenhouse gas emissions aren't that special. Rather, traditional market measures are essential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including competition, open data, better regulation, and community standards markets. One current problem is that society does not talk openly about the real costs. While wider green issues of land misuse, pollution, or biodiversity may still require special approaches, the biggest investment risk - government policy change risk - is not being discussed loudly enough.

Professor Mainelli concludes that properly costed carbon markets with financial cuffs on government policy (eg policy performance bonds, aka sovereign sustainability-linked bonds) could go a long way, and that the voluntary carbon offset markets can work if financial guarantees are added. 'Rule of law' has a huge role, as it does in all well-functioning markets, but special legal approaches are probably unnecessary against greenhouse gas emissions.

Professor Michael Mainelli

Professor Michael Mainelli

Z/Yen Group and City of London Corporation

15:30-16:00 Panel discussion
Professor Eric Wolff FRS

Professor Eric Wolff FRS

University of Cambridge

Professor Gabi Hegerl FRS

Professor Gabi Hegerl FRS

University of Edinburgh, UK

Professor David Fowler CBE FRS, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (Edinburgh Research Station), UK

Professor David Fowler CBE FRS, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (Edinburgh Research Station), UK

Professor Michael Mainelli

Professor Michael Mainelli

Z/Yen Group and City of London Corporation

His Honour Judge Thomas Teague KC

His Honour Judge Thomas Teague KC

Chief Coroner of England and Wales

Chair

Rt Hon Professor Lord Kakkar KBE PC

Rt Hon Professor Lord Kakkar KBE PC

President, Thrombosis Research Institute

16:30-17:20 Closing keynote
Dr Vinton Cerf ForMemRS

Dr Vinton Cerf ForMemRS

Google

17:20-17:30 Closing remarks
Martha Minow

Martha Minow

Harvard Law School

Dr Harold Varmus ForMemRS

Dr Harold Varmus ForMemRS

Weill Medical College, Cornell Unviersity, US