Scientific evidence plays a central role in regulatory decision-making, but regulatory outcomes are shaped by more than science alone. This article examines how agencies evaluate evidence, manage uncertainty, weigh competing interpretations, and apply legal and policy frameworks when translating scientific findings into regulatory action.

Scientific understanding, regulatory frameworks, and commercial markets continue to evolve simultaneously. Cannabinoid regulation provides a case study in how institutions evaluate evidence, manage uncertainty, and adapt to emerging industries.

An examination of how courts evaluate scientific expertise, methodological reliability, and technical evidence under the Daubert framework. The admissibility of expert testimony often depends not on the conclusion reached, but on the reliability of the methods used to reach it.