Barry S. Levy is a physician, author, performer, and political activist.   Dr. Levy is a past president of the American Public Health Association, which conferred upon him its oldest and most prestigious award, the Sedgwick Memorial Medal, in 2005, for his outstanding achievements in public health.

Levy has been received other, less favorable notice from trial and appellate judges.  For instance, one federal judge found Levy engaged in a dubious enterprise to manufacture silicosis claims in Mississippi.  In re Silica Products Liability Litigation, 398 F. Supp. 2d 563, 611-16, 622 & n.100 (S.D. Texas 2005) (expressing particular disappointment with Dr. Barry Levy, who although not the worst offender of a bad lot of physicians, betrayed his “sterling credentials” in a questionable enterprise to manufacture diagnoses of silicosis for litigation). See also Schachtman, Silica Litigation: Screening, Scheming & Suing; Washington Legal Foundation Critical Legal Issues Working Paper Series No. 135 (Dec. 2005) (exploring the ethical and legal implications of the entrepreneurial litigation in which Levy and others were involved).

Unfortunately, In re Silica was not an isolated case.  See, e.g., Lofgren v. Motorola, Inc., 1998 WL 299925, No. CV 93-05521 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty. June 1, 1998); Harman v. Lipari, N.J. L. Div. GLO-L-1375-95, Order of Nov. 3, 2000 (Tomasello, J.) (barring the use of Barry Levy in class action for medical monitoring damages); Castellow v. Chevron USA, 97 F.Supp. 2d 780, 793-95 (S.D. Tex. 2000); Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2007); Watts v. Radiator Specialty Co., 990 So. 2d 143 (Miss. 2008); Aurand v. Norfolk So. Ry., 802 F.Supp.2d 950 (2011).

Now, once again, right here in River City, Dr. Levy has stepped out of bounds, and has been stripped of his mantle of testifying expert witness.  Mallozzi v. Ecosmart Technologies, Inc., 2013 WL 2415677, No. 11-CV-2884 (SJF)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2013).

Over the course of a few minutes, plaintiff Velio Mallozi applied a “couple of ounces” of EcoSmart Organic Home Pest Control product to the foundation of his home, and a few squirts inside.  The product used, EcoSmart, contains plant oils, including one percent peppermint oil.  Id. at *1.  Mallozi did not experience any acute ill effects from his organic pest control efforts, and later went to dinner at an [unidentified] Italian restaurant, where he enjoyed a meal of “spaghetti with seafood.”  Id. at *10.  Perhaps seafood diablo, but Judge Feuerstein doesn’t say.

After the seafood spaghetti meal, Mallozi experienced a serious bout of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).  With sympathy for the diablo, Mallozi sued only EcoSmart, on the claim that his inhaling some spray, with its 1% peppermint oil, caused his LPR.

The Mallozis sought out B.S. Levy to support the claimed relationship.  Levy did not disappoint.  He rendered a report that asserted that the few minutes of inhaling minor amounts of peppermint oil causes relaxation of the lower esophogeal sphincter, and consequently LPR.  Id. at *5.  Levy relied upon four articles to support this claim, but Judge Feuerstein refused to accept the claim of support, at face value.  Her Honor reviewed each study, only to find that the exposures that were associated with relaxation of G.I. smooth muscle, for a short period of about 20 minutes, were trials of ingested peppermint oil, at significantly greater doses, over lengthy periods of observation.  Id. at *6.  The studies individually and collectively did not support Levy’s opinion.

One of the papers on Levy’s reliance list was a case report of a patient that suffered burns in her mouth from ingestion of pure peppermint oil. The court found that this case report, involving large doses of pure peppermint oil, with an outcome different from claimed by Mallozi, was irrelevant.  Id. Even if it were construed to offer some support, the anecdotal nature of the case report, lacking controls, renders the report an unreliable basis for a causal conclusion.  Id.

The trial court found that B.S. Levy’s analysis ignored the crucial roles of dose, duration, route of exposure, and the nature of plaintiff’s condition, LPR.   Id. at *8.  The court held that Levy’s opinion did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 702.  The plaintiffs failed to show that Levy’s opinion was supported sufficiently by facts or data, and they failed to show that his opinion was the product of applying reliable methods and principles.  Id.

Judge Feuerstein, having found that Levy’s opinion on general causation between EcoSmart and LPR was bereft of validity, could have stopped without addressing specific causation.  Such an approach would have had the virtue of judicial economy, but would have left out some delicious facts.  Levy purportedly used some sort of differential etiology to infer the cause of plaintiff’s LPR, but he omitted meaningful consideration of plaintiff’s having had a history of severe severe gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), which predated his bout of LPR.  Indeed, plaintiff’s GERD had been so severe that he had been previously hospitalized for GERD after ingesting coffee and donuts.   Judge Feuerstein found Levy’s iterative disjunctive syllogism invalid for having failed to address the prior history of GERD, and the intervening role of the pasta and seafood dinner, in bringing on the LPR.  Id. at *10-11.

The Material Safety Data Sheet Ploy

Judge Feuerstein also demonstrated a careful understanding of the meaning and role of the Material Data Safety Sheet (MSDS).  EcoSmart’s MSDS contained a warning that some sensitive persons may experience dizziness or irritation of their nasal passages, and that ingestion may cause GI irritation.  Id. at *13.  Dr. Levy had embraced this MSDS language as an “admission,” but he did not analyze the sources of information or their validity.  The MSDS warning, as required by law, addresses the potential hazard of the ingredient, peppermint oil, irrespective of dose, concentration, or route of administration.  Id., citing Moore v. Ashland Chem. Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 278 (5th Cir.1998); Turner v. Iowa Fire Equip. Co., 229 F.3d 1202, 1209 (8th Cir.2000); Ingram v. Solkatronic Chem., Inc., No. 04–CV–0287, 2005 WL 3544244, at *6 (N.D.Okla. Dec. 28, 2005)).

The Treating Physician Echo

Apparently one of Mr. Mallozzi’s treating physicians joined the fray with echoes of Levy’s opinion.  Judge Feuerstein recognized that treating physicians are subject to the requirements of Rule 702, and that a me-too opinion deserved the me-too result.  Id. at *13, citing Davids v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 857 F.Supp. 2d 267, 280 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).

Pasta and Peppermints

Bad sense, innocence, cripplin’ my mind.
Old medical records I just can’t find.
Too much Cajun spice, and I forgot about GERD.
Incense and peppermints, haven’t you heard?
But who cares, it’s just litigation.
Lots to win, but nothing to lose.

Incense and peppermints, meaningless claims.
Turn on, drop in, toxins are all the same

Throw your pride to the side; it’s what you must do.

Daubert is politics; 702.
A yardstick for lunatics, your point of view.
The court cares what games you choose.
You have lots to win, but nothing to lose

(adapted from, and with apologies to, Strawberry Alarm Clock)

Old-fashioned torts presented few problems for attributing causation of the plaintiff’s harm.  Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948), may have involved uncertainty about the shooter, but there was no doubt that a pellet from one of the two defendants’ guns hit the plaintiff and caused a legally recognized injury.

Specific causation has been, and remains, the soft underbelly of the toxic tort world, at least for those cases not involving so-called signature diseases.  A priori assessments of risk do not necessarily translate into post-exposure, post-diagnosis attributions of outcome to exposure.  Put simply, risk is not cause. Guinn v AstraZeneca Pharms. LP, 602 F.3d 1245, 1255 (11th Cir. 2010) (“An expert, however, cannot merely conclude that all risk factors for a disease are substantial contributing factors in its development.  The fact that exposure to a substance may be a risk factor for a disease does not make it an actual cause simply because the disease developed.”) Unless there is a “fingerprint of causation,” what scientists would call a completely specific biomarker, then specific causation opinions are mostly guesswork.

Tobacco companies and others exploited this fact, in face of large relative risks of lung cancer among smokers, to maintain that these epidemiologic assessment were not probative of specific causation.  Andrew See, “Use of Human Epidemiology Studies in Proving Causation,” 67 Def. Couns. J. 478, 478 (2000) (“Epidemiology studies are relevant only to the issue of general causation and cannot establish whether an exposure or factor caused disease or injury in a specific individual.”); Melissa Moore Thomson, Causal Inference in Epidemiology: Implications for Toxic Tort Litigation, 71 N.C. L. Rev. 247, 255 (1992) (“statistic-based epidemiological study results should not be applied directly to establish the likelihood of causation in an individual plaintiff”); Michael Dore, Commentary on the Use of Epidemiological Evidence in Demonstrating Cause-in-Fact, 7 Harv. Envt’l L. Rev. 429, 433 (1983) (“Epidemiological evidence, like other generalized evidence, deals with categories of occurrences rather than particular individual occurrences. . . . Such evidence may help demonstrate that a particular event occurred, but only when accompanied by more specific evidence.”).  See, e.g., In re Fibreboard Corp.,893 F.2d 706, 712 (5th Cir.1990) (“It is evident that these statistical estimates deal only with general causation, for population-based probability estimates do not speak to a probability of causation in any one case; the estimate of relative risk is a property of the studied population, not of an individual’s case.” (emphasis in original; internal quotation omitted)).

Indeed, some courts continue to uphold this extreme anti-probabilistic view, even when relative risks exceed 20, or more.  McTear v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., [2005] CSOH 69, at ¶ 6.180 (Nimmo Smith, L.J.) (“epidemiological evidence cannot be used to make statements about individual causation… . Epidemiology cannot provide information on the likelihood that an exposure produced an individual’s condition. The population attributable risk is a measure for populations only and does not imply a likelihood of disease occurrence within an individual, contingent upon that individual’s exposure.

In past posts, I have addressed some misunderstandings and misrepresentations concerning the use of a priori risk to assessment of specific causation.  One of the more glaring examples of bad scholarship in this area comes in a text edited by Professor Joseph Gastwirth:

“The court in Landrigan v. Celotex Corp. (1992: 1087) arrived at a similar conclusion, finding that:

a relative risk of 2.0 is not so much a password to a finding of causation as one piece of evidence, among others, for the court to consider in determining whether the expert has employed a sound methodology in reaching his or her conclusion.”

Accordingly the court granted recovery for injuries alleged to have arisen as the result of exposure to asbestos, although the demonstrated relative risk was 1.5.

Sana Loue, “Epidemiological Causation in the Legal Context: Substance and Procedures,” in Joseph Gastwirth, ed., Statistical Science in the Courtroom 263, 277 (2000).

Now that is stunningly bad scholarship, from someone who is both a lawyer and a scientist. The New Jersey Supreme Court, in the cited case, reversed a directed verdict for the defendants, and remanded for reconsideration of the admissibility of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses.  There was never even an opportunity for the Supreme Court to “grant recoveries.”  Indeed, Mrs. Landrigan never obtained a favorable verdict in her lawsuit.  After remand, she dismissed her action in the face of the daunting task faced by her expert witnesses.

The author of the chapter, Sana Loue, is a Professor and Director in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics in the School of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Loue holds doctoral degrees in epidemiology and medical anthropology, as well as a law degree.

Dr. Loue is not alone in misunderstanding the Landrigan case. Some of the confusion perhaps results from the New Jersey Supreme Court’s errant opinion.  Some language in the Supreme Court’s decision makes it seem that there was an objection to the admissibility of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses’ opinions.  There was none.  Unlike many gatekeeping decisions, the plaintiff had a full opportunity to be heard; the defendants moved for a directed verdict at the end of the plaintiff’s case.  In addressing the defendants’ motion, the trial court assumed, for the sake of argument, that asbestos can cause colorectal cancer.  General causation was, of course, contested, but the motion turned on whether there was evidence in the record that would support specific causation.  The trial court held that specific causation required expert witness opinion testimony, but that the testimony in the case failed to provide a basis on which a reasonable jury could conclude that Mr. Landrigan’s colorectal cancer was caused by his alleged occupational asbestos exposure.

The New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed in a published opinion.  579 A.2d 1268 (1990).  The Appellate Division’s decision is still worth reading, not only because it correctly decided the issues, but because it reports material facts that the Supreme Court chose to ignore.  First, the Appellate Division noted that the most that Mr. Landrigan had sustained in terms of respiratory effects from his occupational asbestos exposure was pleural thickening, which never caused him impairment in his lifetime.  Indeed, Mr. Landrigan never was aware of this radiographic change, which only an expert witness hired by plaintiff’s counsel could see.  Id. at 1269.  (Plaintiff’ pulmonary physician expert witness, Dr. Sokolowski, had failed his B-reader examination, but he was a favorite of the asbestos plaintiffs’ bar for his “liberal” readings of chest films.)

The Appellate Division also emphasized the record evidence that the cause of most cases of colon cancer was (and remains) unknown, and more important that Mr. Landrigan’s colorectal cancer was physically indistinguishable from almost all other cases of the disease.  Id. at 1270.  The plaintiff’s hired expert witnesses had only epidemiologic evidence of an increased risk of colorectal cancer among asbestos-exposed workers. Although most of the better conducted studies fail to support the claim of increased risk, Drs. Sokolowski and Wagoner, the plaintiff’s witnesses, relied upon Selikoff’s cohort study of insulation workers, and its mortality risk ratios.  Irving J. Selikoff, E. Cuyler Hammond, and Herbert Seidman, “Mortality Experience of Insulation Workers in the United States and Canada, 1943-1976,” 330 Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 91, 103 (1979) (colorectal cancer risk ratio 1.55);  E. Cuyler Hammond, Irving J. Selikoff,  and Herbert Seidman, “Asbestos Exposure, Cigarette Smoking and Death Rates,” 330 Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 473, 480 (1979) (colorectal cancer mortality ratios 1.59 to 1.81).

Mrs. Landrigan’s witnesses both relied upon evidence of an increased risk, while ignoring or dismissing studies that found no such risk, and upon what they claimed was an absence of risk factors, such as fatty diet, excessive alcohol consumption, family history, and prior bowel disease, in Mr. Landrigan.  The trial court, and the Appellate Division, realized that the reasoning that these witnesses advanced failed to support their conclusions, as a matter of science, logic, and law:

“Although not stated by Dr. Sokolowski in so many words, he seems to be saying that risk exposure equates with causation, a proposition which we find legally untenable.”

579 A.2d at 1270 (1990).  The hand waving about ruling out known risk factors left the most likely cause in plain view:  unknown:

“One cannot rule out the presence of other risk factors without knowing what those factors may be.”

Id. at 1271.

The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further inquiries into the reliability of the expert witnesses’ opinions.  Landrigan v. The Celotex Corp., 127 N.J. 404, 605 A.2d 1079 (1992).  Therese Keeley, the capable lawyer who tried the Landrigan case for the defense, had argued the appeal before the Appellate Division, but another lawyer, less familiar with the issues, argued for the defendant, in the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court made much of the new lawyer’s concessions in oral argument:

“Defense counsel urges that the Appellate Division opinion may be read as requiring that an expert may not rely on an epidemiological study to support a finding of individual causation unless the relative risk is greater than 2.0. See 243 N.J.Super. at 457-59, 579 A.2d 1268. At oral argument before us, they agreed that such a requirement may be unnecessary. Counsel acknowledged that under certain circumstances a study with a relative risk of less than 2.0 could support a finding of specific causation. Those circumstances would include, for example, individual clinical data, such as asbestos in or near the tumor or a documented history of extensive asbestos exposure. So viewed, a relative risk of 2.0 is not so much a password to a finding of causation as one piece of evidence, among others, for the court to consider in determining whether the expert has employed a sound methodology in reaching his or her conclusion.”

Id. at 419.  Even so, these concessions, improvident as they might have been, would not permit the Supreme Court to resolve the case as it did.  There was nothing in the Landrigan case, however, which would count as a biomarker of individual causation, or as support for a claim that Mr. Landrigan’s exposure was so much heavier than average that his personal exposure put him on the dose-response curve at a point that corresponded to a relative risk greater than two.

Here is how the Supreme Court described Dr. Sokolowski’s attempted reasoning process:

“In the present case, Dr. Sokolowski began by reviewing the scientific literature to establish both the ability of asbestos to cause colon cancer and the magnitude of the risk that it would cause that result. Next, he assumed that decedent was exposed to asbestos and that his exposure, in both intensity and duration, was comparable to that of the study populations described in the literature. He then assumed that other known risk factors for colon cancer did not apply to decedent. After considering decedent’s exposure and the absence of those factors, Dr. Sokolowski concluded that decedent’s exposure more likely than not had been the cause of his colon cancer.”

Id. at 420-21, 1087-88.  The obvious fly in the ointment is simply that many people with no known risk factors for colon cancer develop the disease.  The assumption behind a cohort study is that all the risk factors are even balanced between the exposed and the unexposed cohorts, and so the relative risk reflects the role of the exposure in question.  Of course, this assumption is rarely true outside the context of a randomized clinical trial, and the Selikoff studies relied upon by plaintiff’s witnesses were particularly inept in controlling or accounting for confounding factors.  Assuming, however, that both the exposed and unexposed groups had the same proportion of men without “known” risk factors, then the most Sokolowski and Wagoner could say was that Mr. Landrigan’s risk of colorectal cancer had been increased by 55% or so, above that of the risk for men similarly situated but lacking occupational asbestos exposure.  This 55% increase was the basis for the Court’s observation that the attributable risk was about 35%.  What the Court left for another day was how, if at all, this evidentiary display could support a conclusion of specific causation.  The trial and intermediate appellate courts saw clearly that Sokolowski and Wagoner had utterly failed to support their specific causation opinions, but the Supreme Court was intent upon giving them another bite at the apple:

“Without limiting the trial court on remand, its assessment of Dr. Sokolowski’s testimony should include an evaluation of the validity both of the studies on which he relied and of his assumption that the decedent’s asbestos exposure was like that of the members of the study populations. The court should also verify Dr.  Sokolowski’s assumption concerning the absence of other risk factors. Finally, the court should ascertain if the relevant scientific community accepts the process by which Dr. Sokolowski reasoned to the conclusion that the decedent’s asbestos exposure had caused his cancer.”

Id. at 420, 1088.  The Court thus did not give plaintiff’s expert witnesses a free pass for trial number two.  When faced with the prospect of having to show that Sokolowski’s and Wagoner’s ipse dixit were reaccepted by the relevant scientific community, the plaintiff dismissed her case.

THE RISE OF THE UBER-EXPERT

One of the curious aspects of the First Circuit’s decision in Milward was the court’s willingness to tolerate a so-called weight of the evidence (WOE) assessment of a causal issue by toxicologist Martyn Smith, when much of the key evidence did not involve toxicology.  In defending WOE, Professor Cranor argues that scientists (such as those in an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group) evaluate evidence from different lines of research into a single, evaluative judgment of the likelihood of causation.  The lines of evidence may involve animal toxicology, cell biology, epidemiology or other disciplines:

“In drawing conclusions from the data to a theory or explanation, it is necessary for scientists to evaluate the quality of different lines of evidence, to integrate them and to assess what conclusion the lines of evidence most likely supports and how well they do so in comparison with alternative explanations.”

See Carl F. Cranor, “Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products: Advances in General Causation Testimony in Toxic Tort Litigation,” PDF 3 Wake Forest J. L. & Policy 105, 117 (2013)[hereinafter cited as Cranor].

Presumably, the scientists will come to the table with the training, experience, and expertise appropriate to their discipline.  The curious aspect of Cranor’s defense is that Martyn Smith’s expertise did not encompass many of  the lines of research advanced, in particular, the epidemiologic.  Of course, in the real world of science, the assessment of the “lines” of evidence is conducted by scientists from the different, relevant disciplines.  In the make-believe world of courtroom science, the collaboration breaks down when a single expert witness, such as Smith, offers opinions outside his real expertise.  Because the law is not particularly demanding with respect to the extent and scope of expertise, Smith was able to hold forth not only on animal experiments, but on human epidemiologic studies.  The defense was able to show that Smith disregarded basic principles of epidemiology, but the First Circuit agreed with Cranor, that consideration of Smith’s disregard should be kicked down the road, to the jury for its consideration.

As a practical matter, in today’s world of highly specialized scientific disciplines, it is simply not possible for an expert witness to address evidence from all the fields needed to evaluate the multiple lines of evidence relevant to a causal issues.  We should rightfully be skeptical of a single expert witness who claims the ability to weigh disparate lines of evidence to synthesize a judgment of causation.  Of course, this is how science is practiced in a courtroom, not in a university.

REJECTION OF EVIDENCE HIERARCHY

Another salient feature of Cranor’s argument is his insistence that there is no hierarchy of evidence.  Cranor’s argument is ambiguous between rejecting a hierarchy of disciplines or a hierarchy within epidemiology itself .  Cranor never actually argues directly for a leveling of all types of epidemiologic studies, and as we will see, his one key citation (repeated three times) is for the hierarchy of disciplines:  epidemiology, molecular biology, genetics, pathology, and the like.

Clearly there are instances of causation determined without epidemiology.  The Henle-Koch postulates after all were developed to assess causation by infection biological organisms.  And in some instances, very suggestive evidence of viral causes of cancer has been attained before confirming epidemiologic evidence.  If there is a meaningful population attributable risk, however, epidemiology should be able to confirm the suspicions of virology or molecular biology.

Cranor repeatedly cites a meeting report of a workshop held in Washington, D.C., in 2003.  See also Michael Green, Michal Freedman, and Leon Gordis, “Reference Guide on Epidemiology,” in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 549, 564 (3d ed. 2011) (citing same meeting report).  Cranor’s citations and quotations misleadingly suggest that the report was an official function of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and that the published report was an official pronouncement of the NCI.  Neither suggestion is true.

Cranor praises the Circuit’s Milward decision for adopting his argument and citing the meeting report for his claim that there is no hierarchy of evidence:

“Citing National Cancer Institute scientists, [the Circuit] also added that “[t]here should be no such hierarchy” of evidence for carcinogenicity as between epidemiological and some other kinds of evidence.¹⁰⁰ These scientists and many distinguished scientific committees would not require epidemiological studies to support claims that a substance can cause adverse effects in humans or place certain other a priori constraints on evidence.¹⁰¹”

Cranor at 119 (citing Milward, at 17, citing Michele Carbone, et al., Modern Criteria to Establish Human Cancer Etiology, 64 Cancer Research 5518, 5522 (2004)).

Given the emphasis that Cranor places upon the Carbone article, it is worth taking a close look.  Carbone’s article was styled “Meeting Report.” See also Michelle Carbone, Jack Gruber, and May Wong, “Modern criteria to establish human cancer etiology,” 14 Semin. Cancer Biol. 397 (2004).  The article was a report of a workshop, not an official NCI publication.  The NCI hosted the meeting; the meeting was not sponsored by the NCI, and the published meeting report was not an official statement of the NCI.  Notably, the report appeared in Cancer Research as a paid advertisement, not in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute as a scholarly article.

In assessing the citation, readers should consider the authors of the meeting report.  Importantly, the discipline of epidemiology was not strongly represented; most of the chairpersons and scientists in attendance were pathologists, cell biologists, virologists, and toxicologists.  The authors of the meeting report reflect the interests and focus of the scientists in attendance.  The lead author was Michele Carbone, a pathologist at Loyola University Chicago.  Some may recognize Carbone as one of the proponents of Simian Virus 40 as a cause of mesothelioma, a hypothesis that has not fared terribly well in the crucible of epidemiologic science.  Other authors included:

George Klein, with the Microbiology and Tumor Biology Center, Karolinska Institute, in Stockholm,

Jack Gruber, a virologist with the Cancer Etiology Branch of the NCI, and

May Wong, a biochemist, with the NCI.

The basis of the citation to Carbone’s meeting report is an informal discussion session that took place at the meeting.  Those in attendance broke out into two groups, one chaired by Brook Mossman, a pathologist, and the other group chaired by Dr. Harald zur Hausen, a famous virologist who discovered the causal relationship between human papilloma virus and cervical cancer.

The meeting report included a narrative of how the two groups responded to twelve questions. Cranor’s citation to this article is based upon one sentence in Carbone’s report, about one of twelve questions:

“6. What is the hierarchy of state-of-the-art approaches needed for confirmation criteria, and which bioassays are critical for decisions: epidemiology, animal testing, cell culture, genomics, and so forth?

There should be no such hierarchy.  Epidemiology, animal, tissue culture and molecular pathology should be seen as integrating evidences in the determination of human carcinogenicity.”

Carbone at 5522.  Considering the fuller context of the meeting and this report, there is nothing particularly surprising about this statement.  It is not clear that the full question and answer even remotely supports the weight that Cranor places upon it.  Clearly, Cranor’s quotations are unduly selective.  For instance, Cranor does not discuss the disagreement among those in attendance over criteria for different carcinogens:

“2. Should the criteria be the same for different agents (viruses, chemicals, physical agents, promoting agents versus initiating DNA-damaging agents)?

There were different opinions. Group 1 debated this issue and concluded that the current listing of criteria should remain the same because we lack sufficient evidence to develop a separate classification. Group 2 strongly supported the view that it is useful to separate the biological or infectious agents from chemical and physical carcinogens due to their frequently entirely different mode of action.”

Carbone at 5521.

Perhaps Cranor did not think a legal audience would be interested in the emphasis given to epidemiology.  The authors of the meeting report noted that the importance to epidemiology for general causation, but its limitations for determining specific causation:

“Concerning the respective roles of epidemiology and molecular pathology, it was noted that epidemiology allows the determination of the overall effect of a given carcinogen in the human population (e.g., hepatitis B virus and hepatocellular carcinoma) but cannot prove causality in the individual tumor patient.”

Carbone at 5518.  The report did not state that epidemiology was not necessary for confirmation of carcinogenicity in the species of interest (humans). The meeting report emphasized the need to integrate the findings of epidemiology and of molecular biology; it did not urge that epidemiology be ignored or disregarded:

“A general consensus was often reached on several topics such as the need to integrate molecular pathology and epidemiology for a more accurate and rapid identification of human carcinogens.”

Carbone at 5518.

“Ideally, before labeling an agent as a human carcinogen, it is important to have epidemiological, experimental animals, and mechanistic evidences (molecular pathology). Not all of the evidence is always available, and, at times, it may be prudent to identify a human carcinogen earlier rather than later.”

Carbone at 5519 (emphasis added).  Unlike Cranor, the authors of the meeting report distinguish between instance when they are acting on a scientific determination of causation, and a precautionary assessment that proceeds prudentially “as if” causation is determined.

Against this fuller context, Cranor’s characterization of the meeting report, and his limited citations and quotations can be seen to be misleading:

“The First Circuit wisely followed the Etiology Branch of the National Cancer Institute, which sponsored a workshop on cancer causation that concluded ‘there should be no . . . hierarchy’ among epidemiology, animal testing, cell culture, genomics, and so forth.¹⁶⁴”

Cranor at 129.  The suggestion that the informal workshop statement represented the views of the Etiology Branch is bogus.  Not content to misrepresent twice, Cranor comes back for yet a third misleading citation to this report:

“A further conclusion, already noted, is that scientific experts in court should be permitted to rely upon all scientifically relevant evidence in nondeductive arguments to draw conclusions about causation.²⁰⁹ “There should be no such hierarchy” of evidence, as the Milward court put it, following scientists conducting a workshop at the National Cancer Institute.²¹⁰ This decision stands as an important corrective to the views of some other appellate and district courts concerning the scientific foundation for expert testimony in toxic tort cases.”

Cranor at 135 (emphasis in original) (citing Carbone for a third time).  To see how misleading is Cranor’s suggestion that scientists should be permitted upon all scientific relevant evidence, consider the meeting report’s careful admonition about the lack of validity of some animal models and mechanistic research:

“Moreover, carcinogens and anticarcinogens can have different effects in different situations.  As shown by the example of addition of β-carotene in the diet, β-carotene has chemopreventive effects in many experimental systems, yet it appears to have increased the incidence of lung cancer in heavy smokers. Animal experiments can be very useful in predicting the carcinogenicity of a given chemical. However, there are significant differences in susceptibility among species and within organs in the same species, and differences in the metabolic pathway of a given chemical among human and animals could lead to error.”

Carbone at 5521.  Obviously relevance is conditioned upon validity, a relationship that is ignored, suppressed, and dismissed in Cranor’s article.

The devil, or the WOE, comes from with ignoring the details.