IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/10.2105-ajph.2005.063917_9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Junking good science: Undoing Daubert v Merrill Dow through cross-examination and argument

Author

Listed:
  • Givelber, D.
  • Strickler, L.

Abstract

For more than 40 years, the tobacco industry prevailed in lawsuits brought by injured smokers, despite overwhelming epidemiological evidence that smoking caused lung cancer. Tobacco lawyers were able to create doubt about causation. They sought to persuade jurors that "everybody knew" smoking was harmful but "nobody knows" what causes cancer by recreating in court the scientific debate resolved by the 1964 Surgeon General's Report. The particularistic structure of jury trials combined with the law's mechanistic view of causation enables a defendant to contest virtually any claim concerning disease causation. Despite judicial efforts to eliminate "junk science" from lawsuits, a well-financed defendant may succeed in persuading jurors of the epidemiological equivalent of the proposition that the earth is flat.

Suggested Citation

  • Givelber, D. & Strickler, L., 2006. "Junking good science: Undoing Daubert v Merrill Dow through cross-examination and argument," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(1), pages 33-37.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2005.063917_9
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.063917
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2005.063917
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2105/AJPH.2005.063917?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2005.063917_9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.