Lawyers don't need to
become scientists.
They do need to know how to think about scientific evidence — and translate it into legal proof while staying true to the science.
Law school teaches the rules governing expert evidence. It rarely teaches scientific reasoning.
Science
²
Law
exists to bridge that gap.
²
first to hear about new programs and resources.
Science
Law
is launching. Be the
By submitting, you agree to receive email updates. Unsubscribe anytime.
A NOTE FROM THE FOUNDER
"Sometimes you lose because the science isn't there. Sometimes you lose because the law isn't there. And sometimes you lose because you translated one into the other poorly. Your job is to figure out which happened."
My career has moved between science and law — first as a scientist and later as a lawyer handling cases built around scientific and medical evidence. Along the way, I became increasingly interested in a problem legal education does not spend much time teaching: how lawyers should actually think about science.
Lawyers learn the rules that govern expert evidence. Scientists learn how to evaluate evidence, uncertainty, inference, and competing explanations. But translating between those systems of reasoning is a skill of its own.
I founded Science²Law to study that problem, develop practical ways of teaching it, and help lawyers become better translators of scientific evidence.
Amber Wilson, PhD, JD
FOUNDER
A methodology, not a topic
Science²Law teaches how to work with an evolving body of science and translate that evidence into a legally persuasive argument without distorting science along the way. Our method is a way of reasoning with scientific evidence: how to identify what the science actually establishes, where uncertainty remains, and what must happen before that evidence can become legal proof.
Learn to translate, not distort
Scientific questions and legal questions are not always the same. Problems arise when lawyers ask science to answer the legal question directly — or make the science sound stronger than it is. Better advocacy requires showing how the scientific evidence supports the legal proposition.
Scientific integrity
strengthens advocacy
The goal is not to teach lawyers to "win with science." It is to reason from the evidence honestly — recognizing limitations, uncertainty, competing explanations, and gaps while still making the strongest argument the evidence can support.
What's Coming
Programs & Workshops — CLEs, scientific-evidence programs, expert examination and cross-examination training, and intensive workshops
Scholarship & Research — causal reasoning, expert evidence, scientific uncertainty, and how courts evaluate incomplete science
Practical Resources — desk manuals, checklists, scientific-literacy guides, and litigation tools
Small-Group & Immersive Programs — advanced professional education in settings designed for deeper learning
CREDENTIALS
Amber Wilson, PhD, JD
Amber's career spans laboratory science and law. She holds a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology and an MS in Biology. Her graduate research encompassed genetics, gene expression, cell signaling, and stem-cell biology. Her scientific work includes original peer-reviewed research and presentations at national scientific conferences.
After earning her JD, she clerked in the Office of Special Masters at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and built a legal practice focused on cases involving complex scientific and medical evidence. She collaborates with attorneys on scientific issues in litigation and regularly teaches and speaks to lawyers and law students about the intersection of scientific evidence and legal reasoning.
Science
²
Law
is launching. Be the
first to hear about new programs and resources.
By submitting, you agree to receive email updates. Unsubscribe anytime.