It happens again and again. Thousands of court cases are decided the wrong way, billions of dollars are awarded, good companies go bankrupt and consumers are hurt because judges and juries do not understand the scientific bases for the evidence they're given.Floy Lilley, Esq., program manager of the Clint W. Murchison Sr. Chair of Free Enterprises at the University of Texas at Austin, and an advisor to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, offers a few examples:
- In the 1970s and 1980s, obstetricians were routinely sued for cerebral palsy, because it was believed the condition was caused by the use of excessive pressure during forceps delivery. About a decade later, long-term studies and surveys determined there is not, nor has there ever been, a statistical link between forceps and cerebral palsy.
- A major American car company endured almost a decade of litigation over an alleged design flaw in one auto's chassis that was believed to cause vehicles to swerve on damp roads. A study by the Department of Transportation, years later, revealed that the cars were involved in such collisions less often than the average car.
- An effective drug widely prescribed for pregnant women suffering from morning sickness was for more than a decade blamed for causing birth defects. Only after a number of verdicts and settlements did the courts gradually catch up with scientific reality the published peer-reviewed studies unambiguously proved: no link between the medication and birth defects.
- Now, consumers are still struggling under the difficulties and expenses caused by the silicone implant situation. Although more then 20 studies in six countries involving hundreds of thousands of women have all confirmed there is no discernible link between silicone implants and diseases, tens of millions of dollars may be awarded in litigation costs before the courts catch up with the scientific data.
One way to solve this, Lilley suggests, is for Congress to establish a fund so courts can retain neutral experts in medical and other scientific or technological cases, to advise judges and juries about the scientific facts in a case.(NAPSI)
|
|