The interactions between the normative discourse of the judiciary and that of scientists have always constituted a thorny problem in the establishment of proof in front of courts. Another problem area has now risen to increasingly significant di-mensions: how the machinery of the judiciary disciplines social scientific phenom-ena. Although there is nothing new about this problem, Sheila Jasanoff’s book about science at the bar demonstrates its richness and inevitable tensions, which are often more sinister than the author’s calm approach would appear to indicate. In particular, positivistic hallucinations à la Comte appear to be raising their heads again in the conviction that everything is transparent for scientific knowledge and that, as a consequence, jurisprudence has no choice but to act for the best, putting complete and untroubled trust in the progress of scientific knowledge.