"The Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process generally followed in federal cases is intended to determine and quantify injury and related damages resulting from a pollution event, such as an oil spill. This paper reviews and comments on the fundamental issues raised by recent NRDA experiences and suggests way in which the process can be significantly improved. The paper also reviews regulations developed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the draft regulation proposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Because NRDA is in large part fundamentally a scientific inquiry, the paper addresses the current difficulties, complexities, and constraints in applying the scientific method to real-time pollution events such as oil spills. In addition, these pollution events, in particular large oil spills, generate enormous public scrutiny, creating great political pressures on natural resource trustees and those named as responsible for the spill in determining natural resource damages based on uncertain data. A workable and reasonable NRDA result requires careful use of available scientific theory and information, which is frequently incomplete. The potential for resolution of NRDAs raises difficult issues of the proper use of science in the context of the confrontational process of litigation. Unfortunately, the NRDA process raises the prospect of the improper use of science-especially where data are not available or are inconclusive or scientific theory is not clearly established-as a tool of selective advocacy serving one side or another rather than the dispassionate search for truth. Various options for preventing the misuse of science are presented. The authors conclude that if the focus of all participants in the NRDA is the efficient and equitable determination of injury, damage and restoration of the environment where possible, the potential for misuse of science is minimized"--Abstract.