Advertisement
AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

AJPH First Look, published online ahead of print Nov 29, 2005
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
AJPH.2005.063917v1
96/1/33    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow purchase articles
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Right arrow Get other permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Givelber, D.
Right arrow Articles by Strickler, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Givelber, D.
Right arrow Articles by Strickler, L.
©
American Journal of Public Health, 10.2105/AJPH.2005.063917

Health Policy and Ethics

Junking Good Science: Undoing Daubert v Merrill Dow Through Cross-Examination and Argument

Daniel Givelber 1* Lori Strickler 1

1 Northeastern University School of Law

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: d.givelber{at}neu.edu.


  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. We explore how the 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 wellfinanced defendant may succeed in persuading jurors of the epidemiological equivalent of the proposition that the earth is flat. (Am J Public Health. 2005;95:XXX-XXX. doi:10.2105/ AJPH.2005.063917)

Key Words: Health Law, Tobacco Control




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Law Med EthicsHome page
J. Alderman
Ethical Implications of Physician Involvement in Lawsuits on Behalf of the Tobacco Industry
J. Law Med. Ethics, December 1, 2007; 35(4): 692 - 698.
[PDF]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
L Friedman and R Daynard
Scottish court dismisses a historic smoker's suit
Tob. Control, October 1, 2007; 16(5): e4 - e4.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2005 by the American Public Health Association