Following the Daubert trilogy, broad changes have occurred within the practice environment of the United States legal culture. Not only have the kinds of cases that are being litigated changed, but also the skills needed by legal professionals to proffer, challenge, and evaluate cases in which expert testimony plays a part. However, wide disparity exists among law schools in the number and variety of courses offered that are designed to provide future attorneys with knowledge and experience related to science or scientific evidence. This research will apply a diffusion model to investigate the extent to which law schools and law school professors have incorporated innovations in litigating cases involving scientific evidence into the law school curriculum. A multi-method study incorporating data related to each of the factors obtained from a telephone sample survey of law school professors, content analysis of course materials, and archival data published on relevant web sites will be conducted to provide a picture of the current educational landscape and to identify the factors that are related to the availability and content of science education for law students. The findings of this research will provide resources for law professors and legal professionals by identifying relevant readings and sources of information, and describing course formats and contents. This information will be used to produce a model curriculum for a scientific evidence course, which will be made available to law professors. Information about the factors to be investigated can also be used by law school administrators to identify strengths and weaknesses in their curriculum, and may be used to support arguments for additional funding and resources in order to improve the curricula of their schools. Finally, this project has the potential to significantly and positively impact society by providing resources that may be used to better prepare law students for their future careers as attorneys, judges, and legislators.
