Black B
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, Atlanta, GA 30383.
Am J Epidemiol. 1990 Jul;132(1 Suppl):S79-86. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115793.
This paper addresses the use of epidemiologic evidence when a cluster becomes the focus of dispute in court. It is often difficult to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an exposure for which a defendant is responsible caused the disease or diseases at issue. Thus, in a number of cases plaintiffs have resorted to nontraditional science, such as clinical ecology, or to questionable extrapolations from animal test data. Other plaintiffs have sought to avoid the traditional causation requirement by making claims based on risk or fear of future disease. Courts have begun to exclude evidence of dubious scientific validity, and they are beginning to grapple with fear and risk claims. These are heartening developments because justice requires that legal decisions be in accord with scientific reality.
本文探讨当一个群体成为法庭争议焦点时流行病学证据的运用。通常很难通过优势证据证明被告所负责的暴露导致了相关疾病。因此，在许多案件中，原告诉诸非传统科学，如临床生态学，或对动物试验数据进行可疑的推断。其他原告试图通过基于对未来疾病的风险或恐惧提出索赔来规避传统的因果关系要求。法院已开始排除科学有效性存疑的证据，并开始处理基于恐惧和风险的索赔。这些都是令人鼓舞的进展，因为司法要求法律裁决符合科学现实。
