Friday, June 27, 2008

Supremes 'dis sponsored research

The knock on academics is that they work on problems that no one cares about and then publish the results in journals that no one reads. But when academics stray from the government-suubsidy model of research to work on real problem, they get punished. Today's Supreme Court decision limiting punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez case has the following footnote. Read to the bottom.
17 The Court is aware of a body of literature running parallel to anecdotal reports, examining the predictability of punitive awards by conducting numerous “mock juries,” where different “jurors” are confronted with the same hypothetical case. See, e.g., C. Sunstein, R. Hastie, J. Payne, D. Schkade, W. Viscusi, Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide (2002); Schkade, Sunstein, & Kahneman, Deliberating About Dollars: The Severity Shift, 100 Colum. L. Rev. 1139 (2000); Hastie, Schkade, & Payne, Juror Judgments in Civil Cases: Effects of Plaintiff’s Requests and Plaintiff’s Identity on Punitive Damage Awards, 23 Law & Hum. Behav. 445 (1999); Sunstein, Kahneman, & Schkade, Assessing Punitive Damages (with Notes on Cognition and Valuation in Law), 107 Yale L. J. 2071 (1998). Because this research was funded in part by Exxon, we decline to rely on it.

thanks to Tim Brennan for pointing this out.

No comments:

Post a Comment