Please cite to the original publication
Law is not unitary. Neither is science. Law pursues a host of divergent purposes: facilitating welfare-enhancing transactions, corrective justice (compensation for harms), preventing injury and disease, punishing crime, protecting our natural and cultural heritage, coordinating collective action, and promoting useful work in the arts and sciences. Law's multiple purposes are developed and pursued in different institutional domains: by courts, legislatures, administrative agencies, and private actors. Even when their purposes are similar, lawmakers in these different categories employ radically diverging processes. Given law's multiple purposes, domains, and processes, could the "law-science problem" possibly be a general one?
Date of Authorship for this Version