Price J M, Rosenberg E S
Faegre and Benson LLP, Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901, USA.
Biomaterials. 1998 Aug;19(16):1425-32. doi: 10.1016/s0142-9612(98)00052-0.
In the legal context, junk science is defined as evidence that is outside of mainstream scientific or medical views. Junk science does not have indicia of reliability and is not generally accepted. Despite the lack of scientific reliability, US courts, expert witnesses and juries are increasingly reliant on junk science in making causation decisions in complex medical liability cases. Courts have accepted junk science even where reliable scientific evidence is available. The United States silicone gel breast implant litigation is a prime example of this phenomenon. The issue of whether silicone breast implants are associated with disease has been a controversial subject for scientists and physicians, an emotional issue for women who have breast implants, and a lucrative business for the lawyers and expert witnesses who are the proponents of junk science. Junk science has provided to juries a quick and convenient explanation for claimed diseases or syndromes which have required years for reliable scientists to conclude are not related to breast implants. The breast implant litigation highlights the often dramatic difference between decisions based upon junk science and decisions grounded in scientific method, fact and reality. Recently, judges involved in the breast implant litigation have become concerned about the use of junk science in light of the growing body of legitimate scientific evidence that breast implants do not cause disease. Several judges have been motivated to take the unique and novel approach of convening scientific panels of independent experts to study the scientific issues and make findings to the court. Through the use of independent scientific experts, several judges have meaningfully assessed the evidence that the litigants present and have prevented or strictly limited the use of junk science in the courtroom. Using this procedure, other judges are weighing the evidence for future cases. This paper will briefly explore the background of mass tort medical products litigation and the development of junk science. The paper will then focus on the history of the breast implant litigation and the steps that the courts have already taken to combat junk science, including the use of scientific panels.
在法律语境中，垃圾科学被定义为有别于主流科学或医学观点的证据。垃圾科学缺乏可靠性标志，且未被普遍接受。尽管缺乏科学可靠性，但在美国法院、专家证人及陪审团在复杂医疗责任案件中做出因果关系判定时，却越来越依赖垃圾科学。即便有可靠的科学证据，法院仍采信垃圾科学。美国硅胶乳房植入物诉讼就是这一现象的典型例子。硅胶乳房植入物是否与疾病相关的问题，对科学家和医生而言一直是个有争议的话题，对植入乳房假体的女性来说是个情感问题，而对支持垃圾科学的律师和专家证人来说则是个利润丰厚的业务。垃圾科学为陪审团提供了一个快速便捷的解释，用以说明那些声称的疾病或综合征，而可靠的科学家们花了数年时间才得出这些疾病与乳房植入物无关的结论。乳房植入物诉讼凸显了基于垃圾科学的判定与基于科学方法、事实及现实的判定之间往往存在的巨大差异。最近，参与乳房植入物诉讼的法官们鉴于越来越多的合法科学证据表明乳房植入物不会导致疾病，开始对垃圾科学的使用表示担忧。几位法官受此推动，采取了独特而新颖的做法，召集独立专家科学小组来研究科学问题并向法庭提交调查结果。通过使用独立科学专家，几位法官对诉讼当事人提交的证据进行了有意义的评估，并在法庭上阻止或严格限制了垃圾科学的使用。其他法官正运用这一程序为未来的案件权衡证据。本文将简要探讨大规模侵权医疗产品诉讼的背景以及垃圾科学的发展。接着，本文将聚焦乳房植入物诉讼的历史以及法院为打击垃圾科学已采取的措施，包括使用科学小组。
