Courting Reliable Science: Judges Seek to Improve Use of Scientific Experts in Trials

By Monastersky, Richard | Science News, April 18, 1998 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Courting Reliable Science: Judges Seek to Improve Use of Scientific Experts in Trials

Monastersky, Richard, Science News

In some of the most complex cases currently crawling through the U.S. courts, upwards of 500,000 women are suing the makers of silicone gel breast implants, claiming a range of medical problems caused by the occasionally leaky packets buried under their skin. At their core, these cases rely on scientific experts to weigh in on whether the implants can damage the human immune system, trigger connective tissue diseases, or precipitate a host of other disorders, from allergies to vertigo. The litigation pits one team of experts against another. Judges and juries must listen to the scientific arguments and then decide which side bears the preponderance of the evidence.

To many observers, such battles of the, experts appear to be straining the judicial system. "This is a circumstance where the information that the courts must consider is so inherently complex that even the best efforts by skilled advocates to educate the court often fall short of the mark says Joe S. Cecil, a lawyer and psychologist who conducts research for the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C.

"I believe the breast implant cases are the most challenging cases that are in federal courts today," Cecil said in February at a meeting sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Philadelphia. In Alabama, a federal district judge is experimenting with a potential solution to the problem of complex scientific arguments. Judge Sam C. Pointer Jr. has appointed a panel of four independent scientists to examine the available evidence about silicone gel breast implants and disease. These court-appointed experts--an epidemiologist, an immunologist, a rheumatologist, and a toxicologist--have been asked to offer their own assessments of the state of the science and examine the validity of dissenting opinions.

Their conclusions will be particularly influential because Pointer is presiding over a multidistrict litigation--a procedure that has grouped together more than 20,000 individual suits in order to make the pretrial phase more efficient. When these cases go back to their separate federal courts for trial, judges across the nation will decide how they wish to use the report from this independent panel.

Judges have had the authority to appoint independent experts since 1975, but relatively few have done so, in part because of widespread opposition from lawyers. The practice is now gaining increased attention. In December 1997, Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court supported the use of court-appointed experts in a concurring opinion he wrote in the case of General Electric Co. v. Joiner.

Breyer expanded on the issue of expert witnesses in an address at the AAAS meeting, noting that "as society becomes more dependent for its well-being upon scientifically complex technology, we find that this technology increasingly underlies legal issues of importance to us all."

The legal system, he says, "has begun to look for ways to improve the quality of the science upon which scientifically related judicial determinations will rest."

Legal professionals and scientists are quick to point out that they face what appear to be irreconcilable differences. Recognizing the problem-plagued relationship, the AAAS called its session on scientific litigation "Disorder in the Courts."

Joseph Sanders, a law professor at the University of Houston, explained. "What the title reflects is a widespread belief that the law is basically doing a poor job with scientific evidence and perhaps even a more fundamental perception that law and science are like oil and water. They're good things in their own place, but they don't mix together very well."

At the most fundamental level, participants at the AAAS meeting noted that science and the law represent wholly different approaches to seeking solutions. Science represents an unending search for explanations, one in which the questioning process prevails and answers are temporary.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Courting Reliable Science: Judges Seek to Improve Use of Scientific Experts in Trials


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?