HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wagner, W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wagner, W. Related Collections Other Race/Ethnicity Socioeconomic Factors Urban Health

Wendy Wagner, JD, MES

The author is with the University of Texas School of Law, Austin.

Correspondence: Request for reprints should be sent to Wendy Wagner, University of Texas School of Law, 727 East Dean Keeton Street, Austin, TX 78705-3299 (e-mail: wwagner{at}mail.law.utexas.edu).

Recently, there has been a trend in both civil litigation and regulatory law to circumvent the scientific community’s collective judgment on the quality of individual studies with an adversarial process of evaluating scientific quality using interest groups. The Supreme Court’s Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc opinion and two recent "good science" laws passed by Congress adopt an adversarial process informed by affected parties for reviewing and screening scientific quality. These developments are unwise. Both theory and experience instruct that an adversarial, interest group–dominated approach to evaluating scientific quality will lead to the unproductive deconstruction of science, further blur the distinction between policy and scientific judgments, and result in poor decisions because the courts and agencies that preside over these "good science" contests sometimes lack the scientific competency needed to make sound decisions.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Rosenstock Protecting special interests in the name of "good science". JAMA, May 24, 2006; 295(20): 2407 - 2410. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Bingham, L. Boden, R. Clapp, P. Hoppin, S. Krimsky, D. Michaels, D. Ozonoff, and A. Robbins BINGHAM ET AL. RESPOND Am J Public Health, February 1, 2006; 96(2): 206 - 207. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Michaels Scientific Evidence and Public Policy Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S5 - S7. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. J. Hoppin and R. Clapp Science and Regulation: Current Impasse and Future Solutions Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S8 - S12. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Melnick A Daubert Motion: A Legal Strategy to Exclude Essential Scientific Evidence in Toxic Tort Litigation Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S30 - S34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]