In 2005 I wrote a paper for my Forensic Psychology class about how television fiction influences jurors. The term "SCI Effect" was coined by both psychologists and legal professionals. In summary, the abundance of television drama around the use of scientific evidence such as DNA is so common, that when it is absent in a real life courtroom, jurors acquit simply because, "that's not how they do it on TV. I would hypothesize the same dilemma is now presenting itself into popular debate about the use of opiods in pain management. With popular television shows such as "House" portraying an addicted Dr, inaccurately, people believe they can spot and diagnose addiction. Where in reality, Dr. HOUSE is more accurately portraying a pain patient that is merely dependent. In real life, he would not be on the same dose of medication of Vicodin for several years, as they would require titration to maintain the same effectiveness over time. However, because viewers have seen this on TV, and repeated across airwaves, they have made themselves experts, based wholly on fiction. Problematic when it comes time to vote, because it would seem many of our legislators are guilty of the same fallacy.
