Washington DC
JUDGES in the US can now overrule scientific opinions that they find too
speculative, following a Supreme Court ruling. This represents a victory for
those who oppose 鈥渏unk science鈥� being presented as evidence, but others worry
that the decision will allow judges to play amateur scientists, dabbling in
issues they don鈥檛 understand.
The ruling says that lower courts have the authority not only to decide
whether the research data presented are based on sound methodology, but also
whether the conclusions that expert witnesses draw are valid.
Advertisement
The Supreme Court had been asked to rule on the case of Robert Joiner, an
electrician who sued the city of Thomasville, Georgia, claiming that his lung
cancer was partly caused by exposure to PCBs while working for the city. His
expert witnesses testified that tests on mice and four epidemiological studies
backed this view. The original judge threw out that testimony as 鈥渦nsupported
speculation鈥�. But an appeals court disagreed.
Legal experts agree that juries can be blinded by 鈥渏unk science鈥�. But many
fear that the new ruling won鈥檛 promote the cause of justice. 鈥淭his opinion is a
green light to lower courts to keep out evidence they don鈥檛 like,鈥� says David
Kaye of Arizona State University College of Law in Tempe.
However, Jeffrey White of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America hopes
the ruling will force lawyers to make the connection between the data being
presented by scientific experts and the conclusions being drawn more explicit.