Abstract
Although historians often appear in court as expert witnesses, their presence stirs unease and controversy. To clarify the issues at stake, this article compares two activities—testifying on behalf of plaintiffs, and conducting an open-ended historical inquiry—by using the author's personal experience in Craft v. Vanderbilt as a case in point. The litigation sought to gain compensation and an apology for the 830-850 women who between 1945 and 1949 at the Vanderbilt prenatal clinic were fed doses of radioactive iron without their consent so as to study the process of iron absorption. The overall conclusion is that historians can serve clients without subverting the canons of the discipline. However, because Clio and client have such different needs, historians should recognize, and take pride in the fact, that courtroom appearances represent advocacy.