"Legal Alchemy shows us what can go wrong and how justice can be frustrated when lawmakers and our legal system don't understand the scientific basis for many of our laws. David Faigman has written an important book."
—Vincent Bugliosi, prosecutor, author of Helter Skelter and Outrage—The Five Reasons O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder
"A cogent argument for lawyers, judges, and legislators to become 'sophisticated consumers of science' so that they can do their jobs with the expertise required in this increasingly technological world."
—Christian Science Monitor
"Faigman prefers to teach, explaining why science and law don’t always dovetail and showing how they can work better together . . . . The analysis is sober and the ideas thought-provoking."
—Washington Post Book World
"The title may seem to promise a rant against 'junk science,' but although disapproving of government misunderstanding and misuse of science, the author delivers a much more thoughtful book."
—National Law Journal
"If you have ever been or plan to be an expert witness, this book is a must read . . . . If you are ever involved in a lawsuit arguing points of science or engineering, you need to prepare by reading this book. Even if you plan to be involved, you must read this book, to ensure you are grounded enough in the frailties of a legal system that doesn't really understand science and is absolutely leery of scientists."
"A gripping account of the stormy relationship between law and science. People in black robes look warily when people in white lab coats enter the courtroom. Faigman's clear-eyed and level-headed book shows us how right judges are to be concernedæand how much scientists (at least some of them) can offer the law."
—John Monahan, Doherty Professor of Law, University of Virginia
"Starting with an examination of the interrelationships between science, law and religion, Faigman goes on to look at how each of the three branches of the federal government approach controversies in which science is involved. His economical prose makes this an interesting read."
—The National Law Journal