TORTINI

For your delectation and delight, desultory dicta on the law of delicts.

Archives »

A Citation for Jurs & DeVito’s Unlawful U-Turn

February 27th, 2024

Antic proposals abound in the legal analysis of expert witness opinion evidence. In the courtroom, the standards for admitting or excluding such evidence are found in judicial decisions or in statutes. When legislatures have specified standards for admitting expert witness opinions, courts have a duty to apply the standards to the facts before them. Law professors are, of course, untethered from either precedent or statute, and so we may expect chaos to ensue when they wade into disputes about the proper scope of expert witness gatekeeping.

Andrew Jurs teaches about science and the law at the Drake University Law School, and Scott DeVito is an associate professor of law at the Jacksonville University School of Law. Together, they have recently produced one of the most antic of antic proposals in a fatuous call for the wholesale revision of the law of expert witnesses.[1]

Jurs and DeVito rightly point out that since the Supreme Court, in Daubert,[2] waded into the dispute whether the historical Frye decision survived the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence, we have seen lower courts apply the legal standard inconsistently and sometimes incoherently. These authors, however, like many other academics, incorrectly label one or the other standard, Frye or Daubert, as being stricter than the other. Applying the labels of stricter and weaker standards, ignores that they are standards that measure completely different things. Frye advances a sociological standard, and a Frye test challenge can be answered by conducting a survey. Rule 702, as interpreted by Daubert, and as since revised and adopted by the Supreme Court and Congress, is an epistemic standard. Jurs and DeVito, like many other legal academic writers, apply a single adjective to standards that measure two different, incommensurate things. The authors’ repetition of the now 30-plus year-old mistake is a poor start for a law review article that sets out to reform the widespread inconsistency in the application of Rule 702, in federal and in state courts.

In seeking greater adherence to the actual rule, and consistency among decisions, Jurs and DeVito might have urged for judicial education, or blue-ribbon juries, or science courts, or greater use of court-appointed expert witnesses. Instead they have put their marker down on abandoning all meaningful gatekeeping. Jurs and DeVito are intent upon repairing the inconsistency and incoherency in the application of Daubert, by removing the standard altogether.

“To resolve the problem, we propose that the Courts replace the multiple Daubert factors with a single factor—testability—and that once the evidence meets this standard the judge should provide the jury with a proposed jury instruction to guide their analysis of the fact question addressed by the expert evidence.”[3]

In other words, because lower federal courts have routinely ignored the actual statutory language of Rule 702, and Supreme Court precedents, Jurs and DeVito would have courts invent a new standard, that virtually excludes nothing as long as someone can imagine a test for the asserted opinion. Remarkably, although they carry on about the “rule of law,” the authors fail to mention that judges have no authority to ignore the requirements of Rule 702. And perhaps even more stunning is that they have advanced their nihilistic proposal in the face of the remedial changes in Rule 702, designed to address judicial lawlessness in ignoring previously enacted versions of Rule 702. This antic proposal would bootstrap previous judicial “flyblowing” of a Congressional mandate into a prescription for abandoning any meaningful standard. They have articulated the Cole Porter standard: anything goes. Any opinion that “can be tested is science”; end of discussion.  The rest is for the jury to decide as a question of fact, subject to the fact finder’s credibility determinations. This would be a Scott v. Sandford rule[4] for scientific validity; science has no claims of validity that the law is bound to respect.

Jurs and DeVito attempt a cynical trick. They argue that they would fix the problem of “an unpredictable standard” by reverting to what they say is Daubert’s first principle of ensuring the reliability of expert witness testimony, and limiting the evidentiary display at trial to “good science.” Cloaking their nihilism, the authors say that they want to promote “good science,” but advocate the admissibility of any and every opinion, as long as it is theoretically “testable.” In order to achieve this befuddled goal, they simply redefine scientific knowledge as “essentially” equal to testable propositions.[5]

Jurs and DeVito marshal evidence of judicial ignorance of key aspects of scientific method, such as error rate. We can all agree that judges frequently misunderstand key scientific concepts, but their misunderstandings and misapplications do not mean that the concepts are unimportant or unnecessary. Many judges seem unable to deliver an opinion that correctly defines p-value or confidence interval, but their inabilities do not allow us to dispense with the need to assess random error in statistical tests. Our faint-hearted authors never explain why the prevalence of judicial error must be a counsel of despair that drives us to bowdlerize scientific evidence into something it is not. We may simply need better training for judges, or better assistance for them in addressing complex claims. Ultimately, we need better judges.

For those judges who have taken their responsibility seriously, and who have engaged with the complexities of evaluating validity concerns raised in Rule 702 and 703 challenges, the Jurs and DeVito proposal must seem quite patronizing. The “Daubert” factors are simply too complex for you, so we will just give you crayons, or a single, meaningless factor that you cannot screw up.[6]

The authors set out a breezy, selective review of statements by a few scientists and philosophers of science. Rather than supporting the extreme reductionism, Jurs and DeVito’s review reveals that science is much more than identifying a “testable” proposition. Indeed, the article’s discussion of philosophy and practice of science weighs strongly against the authors’ addled proposal.[7]

The authors, for example, note that Sir Isaac Newton emphasized the importance of empirical method.[8] Contrary to the article’s radical reductionism, the authors note that Sir Karl Popper and Albert Einstein stressed that the failure to obtain a predicted experimental result may render a theory “untenable,” which of course requires data and valid tests and inferences to assess. Quite a bit of motivated reasoning has led Jurs and DeVito to confuse a criterion of testability with the whole enterprise of science, and to ignore the various criteria of validity for collecting data, testing hypotheses, and interpreting results.

The authors suggest that their proposal will limit the judicial inquiry to the the legal question of reliability, but this suggestion is mere farce. Reliability means obtaining the same or sufficiently similar results upon repeated testing, but these authors abjure testing itself.  Furthermore, reliability as contemplated by the Supreme Court, in 1993, and by FRE 702 ever since, has meant validity of the actual test that an expert witness argues in support of his or her opinion or claims.

Whimsically, and without evidence, Jurs and DeVito claim that their radical abandonment of gatekeeping will encourage scientists, in “fields that are testable, but not yet tested, to perform real, objective, and detailed research.” Their proposal, however, works to remove any such incentive because untested but testable research becomes freely admissible. Why would the lawsuit industry fund studies, which might not support their litigation claims, when the industry’s witnesses need only imagine a possible test to advance their claims, without the potential embarrassment by facts? The history of modern tort law teaches us that cheap speculation would quickly push out actual scientific studies.

The authors’ proposal would simply open the floodgates of speculation, conjecture, and untested hypothesis, and leave the rest to the vagaries of trials, mostly in front of jurors untrained in evaluating scientific and statistical evidence. Admittedly, some incurious and incompetent gatekeepers and triers of fact will be relieved to know that they will not have to evaluate actual scientific evidence, because it had been eliminated by the Jurs and DeVito proposal to make mere testability the touchstone of admissibility

To be sure, in Aristotelian terms, testability is logical and practically prior to testing, but these relationships do not justify holding out testability as the “essence” of science, and the alpha and omega of science.[9] Of course, one must have an hypothesis to engage in hypothesis testing, but science lies in the clever interrogation of nature, guided by the hypothesis. The scientific process lies in answering the question, not simply in formulating the question.

As for the authors’ professed concern about “rule of law,” readers should note that the Jurs and DeVito article completely ignores the remedial amendment to Rule 702, which went into effect on December 1, 2023, to address the myriad inconsistencies, and failures to engage, in required gatekeeping of expert witness opinion testimony.[10]

The new Rule 702 is now law, with its remedial clarification that the proponent of expert witness opinion must show the court that the opinion is sufficiently supported by facts or data, Rule 702(b), and that the opinion “reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case,” Rule 702(d). The Rule prohibits deferring the evaluation of sufficiency of support or reliability of application of method to the trier of fact; there is no statutory support for suggesting that these inquires always or usually go to “weight and not admissibility.”

The Jurs and DeVito proposal would indeed be a U-Turn in the law of expert witness opinion testimony. Rather than promote the rule of law, they have issued an open, transparent call for licentiousness in the adjudication of scientific and technical issues.

[1] Andrew Jurs & Scott DeVito, “A Return to Rationality: Restoring the Rule of Law After Daubert’s Disasterous U-Turn,” 164 New Mexico L. Rev. 164 (2024) [cited below as U-Turn]

[2] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

[3] U-Turn at 164, Abstract.

[4] 60 U.S. 393 (1857).

[5] U-Turn at 167.

[6] U-Turn at 192.

[7] See, e.g., U-Turn at 193 n.179, citing David C. Gooding, “Experiment,” in W.H. Newton-Smith, ed., A Companion to the Philosophy of Science 117 (2000) (emphasizing the role of actual experimentation, not the possibility of experimentation, in the development of science).

[8] U-Turn at 194.

[9] See U-Turn at 196.

[10] See Supreme Court Order, at 3 (Apr. 24, 2023); Supreme Court Transmittal Package (Apr. 24, 2023).

Posted in Expert Witnesses, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence | 241 Comments »

The Proper Study of Mankind

December 24th, 2023

“Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;

The proper study of Mankind is Man.”[1]

 

Kristen Ranges recently earned her law degree from the University of Miami School of Law, and her doctorate in Environmental Science and Policy, from the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine, Atmospheric, and Earth Science. Ranges’ dissertation was titled Animals Aiding Justice: The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Ensuing Neurobehavioral Impacts as a Case Study for Using Animal Models in Toxic Tort Litigation – A Dissertation.[2] At first blush, Ranges would seem to be a credible interlocutor in the never-ending dispute over the role of whole animal toxicology (and in vitro toxicology) in determining human causation in tort litigation. Her dissertation title is, however, as Martin Short would say, a bit of a tell. Zebrafish become sad when exposed to oil spills, as do we all.

Ranges recently published a spin-off of her dissertation as a law review article with one of her professors. “Vermin of Proof: Arguments for the Admissibility of Animal Model Studies as Proof of Causation in Toxic Tort Litigation.”[3] Arguments for; no arguments against. We can thus understand this is an advocacy piece, which is fair enough. The paper was not designed or titled to mislead anyone into thinking it would be a consideration of arguments for and against extrapolation from (non-human) animal studies to human beings. Perhaps you will think it churlish of me to point out that animal studies will rarely be admissible as evidence. They come into consideration in legal cases only through expert witnesses’ reliance upon them. So the issue is not whether animal studies are admissible, but rather whether expert witness opinion testimony that relies solely or excessively on animal studies for purposes of inferring causation is admissible under the relevant evidentiary rules. Talking about the admissibility of animal model studies signals, if nothing else, a serious lack of familiarity with the relevant evidentiary rules.

Ranges’ law review is clearly, and without subtlety, an advocacy piece. She argues:

“However, judges, scholars, and other legal professionals are skeptical of the use of animal studies because of scientific and legal concerns, which range from interspecies disparities to prejudice of juries. These concerns are either unfounded or exaggerated. Animal model studies can be both reliable and relevant in toxic tort cases. Given the Federal Rules of Evidence, case law relevant to scientific evidence, and one of the goals of tort law-justice-judges should more readily admit these types of studies as evidence to help plaintiffs meet the burden of proof in toxic tort litigation.”[4]

For those of you who labor in this vineyard, I would suggest you read Ranges’ article and judge for yourself. What I see is a serious lack of scientific evidence for her claims, and a serious misunderstanding of the relevant law. One might, for starters, putting aside the Agency’s epistemic dilution, ask whether there are any I.A.R.C. category I (“known”) carcinogens based solely upon animal evidence. Or has the U.S. Food & Drug Administration ever approved a medication as reasonably safe and effective based upon only animal studies?

Every dog owner and lover has likely been told by a veterinarian, or the Humane Society, that we should resist their lupine entreaties and withhold chocolate, raisins, walnuts, avocados, and certain other human foods. Despite their obvious intelligence, capacity for affection, when it comes to toxicology, dogs are not people, although some people act like the less reputable varieties of dogs.

Back in 1985, in connection with Agent Orange litigation, the late Judge Jack Weinstein wrote what was correct then, and even more so today, that “laboratory animal studies are generally viewed with more suspicion than epidemiological studies, because they require making the assumption that chemicals behave similarly in different species.”[5] Judge Weinstein was no push-over for strident defense counsel or expert witnesses, but the legal consequences were nonetheless obvious to him, when he looked carefully at the animal studies plaintiffs’ expert witnesses were claiming to support their opinions. “[A]nimal studies are of so little probative value as to be inadmissible.  They cannot be a predicate for an opinion under Rule 703.”[6] One of the several disconnects between the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses’ animal studies and the human diseases claimed was the disparity of dose and duration between the relied upon studies and the service men claimants. Judge Weinstein observed that when the hand waving stopped, “[t]here is no evidence that plaintiffs were exposed to the far higher concentrations involved in both animal and industrial exposure studies.”[7]

Ranges and Oakley unfairly deprecate the Supreme Court’s treatment of animal evidence in the 1997 Joiner opinion.[8] Mr. Joiner had been an electrician by a small city in Georgia, where he experienced dermal exposure, over several years, to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s), a chemical found in electrical transformer coolant. He alleged that he had developed small-cell lung cancer from his occasional occupational exposure. In the district court, a careful judge excluded the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, who relied heavily upon animal studies and who cherry picked and distorted the available epidemiology.[9] The Court of Appeals reversed, in an unsigned, non-substantive opinion that interjected an asymmetric standard of review.[10]

After granting review, the Supreme Court engaged with the substantive validity issues passed over by the intermediate appellate court. In addressing the plaintiff’s expert witnesses’s reliance upon animal studies, the Court was struck by an extrapolation from a different species, different route of administration, different dose, different duration of exposure, and different disease.[11] Joiner was an adult human whose alleged exposure to PCBs was far less than the exposure in the baby mice that received injections of PCBs in a high concentration. The mice developed alveologenic adenomas, a rare tumor that is usually benign, not malignant.[12] The Joiner Court recognized that these multiple extrapolations were a bridge to nowhere, and reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the judgment of the district court. What is particular salient about the Joiner decision, and about which you will find no discussion in the law review paper by Ranges and Oakley, is how well the Joiner opinion has held up over quarter of a century that passed. Today, in the waning moments of 2023, there is still no valid, scientifically sound support for the claim that the sort of exposure Mr. Joiner had can cause small-cell lung cancer.[13]

Perhaps the most egregious lapses in scholarship occur when Ranges, a newly minted scientist, and her co-author, a full professor of law, write:

“For example, Bendectin, an antinausea medication prescribed to pregnant women, caused a slew of birth defects (hence its nickname ‘The Second Thalidomide’).49”[14]

I had to re-read this sentence many times to make sure I was not hallucinating. Ranges’ and Oakley’s statement is, of course, demonstrably false. A double whooper, at least, and a jarring deviation from the standard of scholarly care.

But their statement is footnoted you say. Here is what the cited article, footnote 40 in “Vermin of Proof,” says:

“RESULTS: The temporal trends in prevalence rates for specific birth defects examined from 1970 through 1992 did not show changes that reflected the cessation of Bendectin use over the 1980–84 period. Further, the NVP hospitalization rate doubled when Bendectin use ceased.

CONCLUSIONS: The population results of the ecological analyses complement the person-specific results of the epidemiological analyses in finding no evidence of a teratogenic effect from the use of Bendectin.”[15]

So the cited source actually says the exact opposite of what the authors assert. Apparently, students on law review at Georgetown University Law Center do not check citations for accuracy. Not only was the statement wrong in 1993, when the Supreme Court decided the famous Daubert case, it was wrong 20 years later, in 2013, when the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved  Diclegis, a combination of doxylamine succinate and pyridoxine hydrochloride, the essential ingredients in Bendectin, for sale in the United States, for pregnant women experiencing nausea and vomiting.[16] The return of Bendectin to the market, although under a different name, was nothing less than a triumph of science over the will of the lawsuit industry.[17] 

Channeling the likes of plaintiffs’ expert witness Carl Cranor (whom they cite liberally and credulously), Ranges and Oakley argue for a vague “weight of the evidence” (WOE) methodology, in which several inconclusive and lighter-than-air pieces of evidence somehow magically combine in cold fusion to warrant a conclusion of causation. Others have gone down this dubious path before, but these authors’ embrace of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses’ opinion in Bendectin litigation reveals the insubstantiality and the invalidity of their method.[18] As Professor Ronald Allen put the matter:

“Given the weight of evidence in favor of Bendectin’s safety, it seems peculiar to argue for mosaic evidence [WOE] from a case in which it would have plainly been misleading.”[19]

It surely seems like a reduction ad absurdum of the proposed methodology.

One thing these authors get right is that most courts disparage and exclude expert witness opinion that relies exclusively or excessively upon animal toxicology.[20] They wrongly chastise these courts, however, for ignoring scientific opinion. In 2005, the Teratology Society issued a position paper on causation in teratology-related litigation,[21] in which the Society specifically addressed the authors’ claims:

“6. Human data are required for conclusions that there is a causal relationship between an exposure and an outcome in humans. Experimental animal data are commonly and appropriately used in establishing regulatory exposure limits and are useful in addressing biologic plausibility and mechanism questions, but are not by themselves sufficient to establish causation in a lawsuit. In vitro data may be helpful in exploring mechanisms of toxicity but are not by themselves evidence of causation.”[22]

Ranges and Oakley are flummoxed that courts exclude expert witnesses who have relied upon animal studies when regulatory agencies use such studies with abandon. The case law on the distinction between precautionary standards in regulation and causation standards in tort law is clear, and explains the difference in approach, but these authors are determined to ignore the obvious difference.[23] The Teratology Society emphasized what should be hornbook law; namely, regulatory standards for testing and warnings are not particularly germane to tort law standards for causation:

“2. The determination of causation in a lawsuit is not the same as a regulatory determination of a protective level of exposure. If a government agency has determined a regulatory exposure level for a chemical, the existence of that level is not evidence that the chemical produces toxicity in humans at that level or any other level. Regulatory levels use default assumptions that are improper in lawsuits. One such assumption is that humans will be as sensitive to the toxicity of a chemical as is the most sensitive experimental animal species. This assumption may be very useful in regulation but is not evidence that exposure to that chemical caused an adverse outcome in an individual plaintiff. Regulatory levels often incorporate uncertainty factors or margins of exposure. These factors may result in a regulatory level much lower than an exposure level shown to be harmful in any organism and are an additional reason for the lack of utility of regulatory levels in causation considerations.”[24]

The suggestion from Ranges and Oakley that the judicial treatment of reliance upon animal studies is based upon ossified, ancient precedent, prejudice, and uncritical acceptance of defense counsel’s unsupported argument is simply wrong. There are numerous discussions of the difficulty of extrapolating teratogenicity from animal data to humans,[25] and ample basis for criticism of the glib extension of rodent carcinogenicity to humans.[26]

Ranges and Oakley ignore the extensive scientific literature questioning extrapolation from high exposure rodent models to much lower exposures in humans.[27] The invalidity of extrapolation can result in both false positives and false negatives. Indeed the thalidomide case is a compelling example of the failure of animal testing. Thalidomide was tested on pregnant rats and rabbits without detecting teratogenicity; indeed most animal species do not metabolize thalidomide or exhibit teratogenicity as seen in humans. Animal models simply do not have a sufficient positive predictive value to justify a conclusion of causation in humans, even if we accept a precautionary principle recognition of such animal testing for regulatory purposes.[28]

As improvident as Ranges’ pronouncements may be, finding her message amplified by Professor Ed Cheng on his podcast series, Excited Utterances, was even more disturbing. In November 2023, Cheng interviewed Kristen Ranges in an episode of his podcast, Vermin of Proof, in which he gave Ranges a chance to reprise her complaints about the judiciary’s handling of animal evidence, without much in the way of specificity, and with some credulous cheerleading to aid and abet. In his epilogue, Cheng wondered why toxicologic evidence is disfavored when such evidence is routinely used by scientists and regulators. What Cheng misses is that regulators use toxicologic evidence for regulation, not for assessments of human causation, and that the two enterprises are quite different.  The regulatory exercise goes something like asking about the stall speed of a pig. It does not matter that pigs cannot fly; we skip that fact and press on to ask what the pig’s take off and stall speeds are.

Seventy years ago, no less than Sir Austin Bradford Hill, observed that:

“We may subject mice, or other laboratory animals, to such an atmosphere of tobacco smoke that they can — like the old man in the fairy story — neither sleep nor slumber; they can neither breed nor eat. And lung cancers may or may not develop to a significant degree. What then? We may have thus strengthened the evidence, we may even have narrowed the search, but we must, I believe, invariably return to man for the final proof or proofs.”[29]

[1] Alexander Pope, “An Essay on Man” (1733), in Robin Sowerby, ed., Alexander Pope: Selected Poetry and Prose at 153 (1988).

[2] Kristen Ranges, Animals Aiding Justice: The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Ensuing Neurobehavioral Impacts as a Case Study for Using Animal Models in Toxic Tort Litigation – A Dissertation (2023).

[3] Kristen Ranges & Jessica Owley, “Vermin of Proof: Arguments for the Admissibility of Animal Model Studies as Proof of Causation in Toxic Tort Litigation,” 34 Georgetown Envt’l L. Rev. 303 (2022) [Vermin]

[4] Vermin at 303.

[5] In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 F. Supp. 1223, 1241 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff’d, 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1234 (1988).

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 144 (1997) [Joiner]

[9] Joiner v. General Electric Co., 864 F. Supp. 1310 (N.D. Ga. 1994).

[10] Joiner v. General Electric Co., 134 F.3d 1457 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). 

[11] Joiner, 522 U.S. at 144-45.

[12] See Leonid Roshkovan, Jeffrey C. Thompson, Sharyn I. Katz, Charuhas Deshpande, Taylor Jenkins, Anna K. Nowak, Rosyln Francis, Carole Dennie, Dominique Fabre, Sunil Singhal, and Maya Galperin-Aizenberg, “Alveolar adenoma of the lung: multidisciplinary case discussion and review of the literature,” 12 J. Thoracic Dis. 6847 (2020).

[13] See “How Have Important Rule 702 Holdings Held Up With Time?” (Mar. 20, 2015); “The Joiner Finale” (Mar. 23, 2015).

[14] Vermain at 312.

[15] Jeffrey S Kutcher, Arnold Engle, Jacqueline Firth & Steven H. Lamm, “Bendectin and Birth Defects II: Ecological Analyses, 67 Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology 88, 88 (2003).

[16] See FDA News Release, “FDA approves Diclegis for pregnant women experiencing nausea and vomiting,” (April 8, 2013).

[17] See Gideon Koren, “The Return to the USA of the Doxylamine-Pyridoxine Delayed Release Combination (Diclegis®) for Morning Sickness — A New Morning for American Women,” 20 J. Popul. Ther. Clin. Pharmacol. e161 (2013).

[18] Michael D. Green, “Pessimism About Milward,” 3 Wake Forest J. Law & Policy41, 62-63 (2013); Susan Haack, “Irreconcilable Differences? The Troubled Marriage of Science and Law,” 72 Law & Contemporary Problems 1, 17 (2009); Susan Haack, “Proving Causation: The Holism of Warrant and the Atomism of Daubertm” 4 J. Health & Biomedical Law 273, 274-78 (2008).

[19] Ronald J. Allen & Esfand Nafisi, “Daubert and its Discontents,” 76 Brooklyn L. Rev. 132, 148 (2010). 

[20] See In re Zoloft (Sertraline Hydrochloride) Prods. Liab. Litig., 26 F. Supp. 3d 466, 475 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (noting that “causation opinions based primarily upon in vitro and live animal studies are unreliable and do not meet the Daubert standard.”), aff’d, 858 F.3d 787 (3rd Cir. 2017); Chapman v. Procter & Gamble Distrib., LLC, 766 F.3d 1296, 1308 (11th Cir. 2014) (affirming exclusion of testimony based on “secondary methodologies,” including animal studies, which offer “insufficient proof of general causation.”); The Sugar Ass’n v. McNeil-PPC, Inc., 2008 WL 11338092, *3 (C.D. Calif. July 21, 2008) (finding that plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, including Dr. Abou-Donia, failed to provide the requisite analytical  support for the extrapolation of their Five Opinions from rats to humans”); In re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Prods. Liab. Litig., 318 F. Supp. 2d 879, 891 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (observing that failure to compare similarities and differences across animals and humans could lead to the exclusion of opinion evidence); Cagle v. The Cooper Companies, 318 F. Supp. 2d 879, 891 (C.D. Calif. 2004) (citing Joiner, for observation that animal studies are not generally admissible when contrary epidemiologic studies are available; and detailing significant disadvantages in relying upon animal studies, such as (1) differences in absorption, distribution, and metabolism; (2) the unrealistic, non-physiological exposures used in animal studies; and (3) the use of unverified assumptions about dose-response); Wills v. Amerada Hess Corp., No. 98 CIV. 7126(RPP), 2002 WL 140542, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2002) (faulting expert’s reliance on animal studies because there was no evidence plaintiff had injected suspected carcinogen in same manner as studied animals, or at same dosage levels), aff’d, 379 F.3d 32 (2nd Cir. 2004) (Sotomayor, J.); Bourne v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 189 F. Supp. 2d 482, 501 (S.D. W.Va. 2002) (benlate and birth defects), aff’d, 85 F. App’x 964 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 917 (2004); Magistrini v. One Hour Martinizing Dry Cleaning noted that “[a]nimal bioassays are of limited use in determining whether a particular chemical causes a particular disease, or type of cancer, in humans.”190 180 F. Supp. 2d 584, 593 (D.N.J. 2002); Soutiere v. BetzDearborn, Inc., No. 2:99-CV-299, 2002 WL  34381147, at *4 (D. Vt. July 24, 2002) (holding expert’s evidence inadmissible when “[a]t best there are animal studies that suggest a link between massive doses of [the substance in question] and the development of certain kinds of cancers, such that [the substance in question] is listed as a ‘suspected’ or ‘probable’ human carcinogen”); Glastetter v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 252 F.3d 986, 991 (8th Cir. 2001); Hollander v. Sandoz Pharm. Corp., 95 F. Supp. 2d 1230, 1238 (W.D. Okla. 2000), aff’d, 289 F.3d 1193, 1209 (10th Cir. 2002) (rejecting the relevance of animal studies to causation arguments in the circumstances of the case); Allison v. McGhan Medical Corp., 184 F.3d 1300, 1313–14 (11th Cir.1999); Raynor v. Merrell Pharrns. Inc., 104 F.3d 1371, 1375-1377 (D.C. Cir.1997) (observing that animal studies are unreliable, especially when “sound epidemiological studies produce opposite results from non-epidemiological ones, the rate of error of the latter is likely to be quite high”); Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 89 F.3d 594, 598 (9th Cir.1996); Barrett v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 95 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 1996) (extrapolation from a rat study was speculation); Nat’l Bank of Comm. v. Dow Chem. Co., 965 F. Supp. 1490, 1527 (E.D. Ark. 1996) (“because of the difference in animal species, the methods and routes of administration of the suspect chemical agent, maternal metabolisms and other factors, animal studies, taken alone, are unreliable predictors of causation in humans”), aff’d, 133 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 1998); Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 947 F. Supp. 1387, 1410-11 (D. Or. 1996) (with the help of court-appointed technical advisors, observing that animal studies taken alone fail to predict human disease reliably); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharrns., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1322 (9th Cir. 1995) (on remand from Supreme Court with directions to apply an epistemic standard derived from Rule 702 itself); Sorensen v. Shaklee Corp., 31 F.3d 638, 650 (8th Cir.1994) (affirming exclusion of expert witness opinions based upon animal mutagenicity data not germane to the claimed harm); Elkins v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 8 F.3d 1068, 1073 (6th Cir. 1993);Wade-Greaux v. Whitehall Labs., Inc., 874 F. Supp. 1441, 1482 (D.V.1. 1994), aff’d, 46 F.3d 1120 (3d Cir. 1994) (per curiam); Renaud v. Martin Marietta Corp., Inc., 972 F.2d 304, 307 (10th Cir.1992) (“The etiological evidence proffered by the plaintiff was not sufficiently reliable, being drawn from tests on non-human subjects without confirmatory epidemiological data.”) (“Dr. Jackson performed no calculations to determine whether the dose or route of administration of antidepressants to rats and monkeys in the papers that she cited in her report was equivalent to or substantially similar to human beings taking prescribed doses of Prozac.”); Bell v. Swift Adhesives, Inc., 804 F. Supp. 1577, 1579–81 (S.D. Ga. 1992) (excluding expert opinion of Dr. Janette Sherman, who opined that methylene chloride caused liver cancer, based largely upon on animal studies); Conde v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 804 F. Supp. 972, 1025-26 (S.D. Ohio 1992) (noting that epidemiology is “the primary generally accepted methodology for demonstrating a causal relation between a chemical compound and a set of symptoms or a disease”), aff’d, 24 F.3d 809 (6th Cir. 1994); Turpin v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 959 F.2d 1349, 1360-61 (6th Cir. 1992) (“The analytical gap between the [animal study] evidence presented and the inferences to be drawn on the ultimate issue of human birth defects is too wide. Under such circumstances, a jury should not be asked to speculate on the issue of causation.”); Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 874F.2d 307, 313 (5th Cir. 1989) (noting the “very limited usefulness of animal studies when confronted with questions of toxicity”); Richardson v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 857 F. 2d 823, 830 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (“Positive results from in vitro studies may provide a clue signaling the need for further research, but alone do not provide a satisfactory basis for opining about causation in the human context.”);  Lynch v. Merrell-Nat‘l Labs., 830 F.2d 1190, 1194 (1st Cir. 1987) (“Studies of this sort [animal studies], singly or in combination, do not have the capability of proving causation in human beings in the absence of any confirmatory epidemiological data.”). See also Merrell Dow Pharrns., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 730 (Tex. 1997); DePyper v. Navarro, No. 83-303467-NM, 1995 WL 788828, at *34 (Mich. Cir. Ct. Nov. 27, 1995), aff’d, No. 191949, 1998 WL 1988927 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 1998); Nelson v. American Sterilizer Co., 566 N.W.2d 671 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997)(high-dose animal studies not reliable). But see Ambrosini v. Labarraque,  101 F.3d 129, 137-140 (D.C. Cir.1996); Dyson v. Winfield, 113 F. Supp. 2d 44, 50-51 (D.D.C. 2000).

[21] Teratology Society Public Affairs Committee, “Position Paper Causation in Teratology-Related Litigation,” 73 Birth Defects Research (Part A) 421 (2005) [Teratology Position Paper]

[22] Id. at 423.

[23]  See “Improper Reliance Upon Regulatory Risk Assessments in Civil Litigation” (Mar. 19, 2023) (collecting cases).

[24] Teratology Position Paper at 422-423.

[25] See, e.g., Gideon Koren, Anne Pastuszak & Shinya Ito, “Drugs in Pregnancy,” 338 New England J. Med. 1128, 1131 (1998); Louis Lasagna, “Predicting Human Drug Safety from Animal Studies: Current Issues,” 12 J. Toxicological Sci. 439, 442-43 (1987).

[26] Bruce N. Ames & Lois S. Gold, Too Many Rodent Carcinogens: Mitogenesis Increases Mutagenesis, 249 Science 970, 970 (1990) (noting that chronic irritation induced by many chemicals at high exposures is itself a cause of cancer in rodent models); Bruce N. Ames & Lois Swirsky Gold, “Environmental Pollution and Cancer: Some Misconceptions,” in Jay H. Lehr, ed., Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns 151, 153 (1992); Mary Eubanks, “The Danger of Extrapolation: Humans and Rodents Differ in Response to PCBs,” 112 Envt’l Health Persps. A113 (2004)

[27] Andrea Gawrylewski, “The Trouble with Animal Models: Why did human trials fail?” 21 The Scientist 44 (2007); Michael B. Bracken, “Why animal studies are often poor predictors of human reactions to exposure,” 101 J. Roy. Soc. Med. 120 (2008); Fiona Godlee, “How predictive and productive is animal research?” 3348 Brit. Med. J. g3719 (2014); John P. A. Ioannidis, “Extrapolating from Animals to Humans,” 4 Science Translational Med. 15 (2012); Pandora Pound & Michael Bracken, “Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research?” 348 Brit. Med. J. g3387 (2014); Pandora Pound, Shah Ebrahim, Peter Sandercock, Michael B Bracken, and Ian Roberts, “Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?” 328 Brit. Med. J. 514 (2004) (writing on behalf of the Reviewing Animal Trials Systematically (RATS) Group).

[28] See Ray Greek, Niall Shanks, and Mark J. Rice, “The History and Implications of Testing Thalidomide on Animals,” 11 J. Philosophy, Sci. & Law 1, 19 (2011).

[29] Austin Bradford Hill, “Observation and Experiment,” 248 New Engl. J. Med. 995, 999 (1953).

Posted in Causation, Expert Witnesses, Rule 702, Rule 703, Toxicological Evidence | 103 Comments »

Consenus is Not Science

November 8th, 2023

Ted Simon, a toxicologist and a fellow board member at the Center for Truth in Science, has posted an intriguing piece in which he labels scientific consensus as a fool’s errand.[1]  Ted begins his piece by channeling the late Michael Crichton, who famously derided consensus in science, in his 2003 Caltech Michelin Lecture:

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

* * * *

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”[2]

Crichton’s (and Simon’s) critique of consensus is worth remembering in the face of recent proposals by Professor Edward Cheng,[3] and others,[4] to make consensus the touchstone for the admissibility of scientific opinion testimony.

Consensus or general acceptance can be a proxy for conclusions drawn from valid inferences, within reliably applied methodologies, based upon sufficient evidence, quantitatively and qualitatively. When expert witnesses opine contrary to a consensus, they raise serious questions regarding how they came to their conclusions. Carl Sagan declaimed that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” but his principle was hardly novel. Some authors quote the French polymath Pierre Simon Marquis de Laplace, who wrote in 1810: “[p]lus un fait est extraordinaire, plus il a besoin d’être appuyé de fortes preuves,”[5] but as the Quote Investigator documents,[6] the basic idea is much older, going back at least another century to church rector who expressed his skepticism of a contemporary’s claim of direct communication with the almighty: “Sure, these Matters being very extraordinary, will require a very extraordinary Proof.”[7]

Ted Simon’s essay is also worth consulting because he notes that many sources of apparent consensus are really faux consensus, nothing more than self-appointed intellectual authoritarians who systematically have excluded some points of view, while turning a blind eye to their own positional conflicts.

Lawyers, courts, and academics should be concerned that Cheng’s “consensus principle” will change the focus from evidence, methodology, and inference, to a surrogate or proxy for validity. And the sociological notion of consensus will then require litigation of whether some group really has announced a consensus. Consensus statements in some areas abound, but inquiring minds may want to know whether they are the result of rigorous, systematic reviews of the pertinent studies, and whether the available studies can support the claimed consensus.

Professor Cheng is hard at work on a book-length explication of his proposal, and some criticism will have to await the event.[8] Perhaps Cheng will overcome the objections placed against his proposal.[9] Some of the examples Professor Cheng has given, however, such as his errant his dramatic misreading of the American Statistical Association’s 2016 p-value consensus statement to represent, in Cheng’s words:

“[w]hile historically used as a rule of thumb, statisticians have now concluded that using the 0.05 [p-value] threshold is more distortive than helpful.”[10]

The 2016 Statement said no such thing, although a few statisticians attempted to distort the statement in the way that Cheng suggests. In 2021, a select committee of leading statisticians, appointed by the President of the ASA, issued a statement to make clear that the ASA had not embraced the Cheng misinterpretation.[11] This one example alone does not bode well for the viability of Cheng’s consensus principle.

[1] Ted Simon, “Scientific consensus is a fool’s errand made worse by IARC” (Oct. 2023).

[2] Michael Crichton, “Aliens Cause Global Warming,” Caltech Michelin Lecture (Jan. 17, 2003).

[3] Edward K. Cheng, “The Consensus Rule: A New Approach to Scientific Evidence,” 75 Vanderbilt L. Rev. 407 (2022) [Consensus Rule]

[4] See Norman J. Shachoy Symposium, The Consensus Rule: A New Approach to the Admissibility of Scientific Evidence (2022), 67 Villanova L. Rev. (2022); David S. Caudill, “The ‘Crisis of Expertise’ Reaches the Courtroom: An Introduction to the Symposium on, and a Response to, Edward Cheng’s Consensus Rule,” 67 Villanova L. Rev. 837 (2022); Harry Collins, “The Owls: Some Difficulties in Judging Scientific Consensus,” 67 Villanova L. Rev. 877 (2022); Robert Evans, “The Consensus Rule: Judges, Jurors, and Admissibility Hearings,” 67 Villanova L. Rev. 883 (2022); Martin Weinel, “The Adversity of Adversarialism: How the Consensus Rule Reproduces the Expert Paradox,” 67 Villanova L. Rev. 893 (2022); Wendy Wagner, “The Consensus Rule: Lessons from the Regulatory World,” 67 Villanova L. Rev. 907 (2022); Edward K. Cheng, Elodie O. Currier & Payton B. Hampton, “Embracing Deference,” 67 Villanova L. Rev. 855 (2022).

[5] Pierre-Simon Laplace, Théorie analytique des probabilités (1812) (“The more extraordinary a fact, the more it needs to be supported by strong proofs.”). See Tressoldi, “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Case of Non-Local Perception, a Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences,” 2 Frontiers Psych. 117 (2011); Charles Coulston Gillispie, Pierre-Simon Laplace, 1749-1827: a life in exact science (1997).

[6] “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence” (Dec. 5, 2021).

[7] Benjamin Bayly, An Essay on Inspiration 362, part 2 (2nd ed. 1708).

[8] The Consensus Principle, under contract with the University of Chicago Press.

[9] See “Cheng’s Proposed Consensus Rule for Expert Witnesses” (Sept. 15, 2022);
“Further Thoughts on Cheng’s Consensus Rule” (Oct. 3, 2022); “Consensus Rule – Shadows of Validity” (Apr. 26, 2023).

[10] Consensus Rule at 424 (citing but not quoting Ronald L. Wasserstein & Nicole A. Lazar, “The ASA Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose,” 70 Am. Statistician 129, 131 (2016)).

[11] Yoav Benjamini, Richard D. DeVeaux, Bradly Efron, Scott Evans, Mark Glickman, Barry Braubard, Xuming He, Xiao Li Meng, Nancy Reid, Stephen M. Stigler, Stephen B. Vardeman, Christopher K. Wikle, Tommy Wright, Linda J. Young, and Karen Kafadar, “The ASA President’s Task Force Statement on Statistical Significance and Replicability,” 15 Annals of Applied Statistics 1084 (2021); see also “A Proclamation from the Task Force on Statistical Significance” (June 21, 2021).

Posted in Evidence, Expert Witnesses, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence | 3 Comments »

Tenpenny Down to Tuppence

August 22nd, 2023

Over two years ago, an osteopathic physician by the name of Sherri Tenpenny created a stir when she told the Ohio state legislature that Covid vaccines magnetize people or cause them to “interface with 5G towers.”[1] What became apparent at that time was that Tenpenny was herself a virulent disease vector of disinformation. Indeed, in its March 2021 report, the Center for Countering Digital Hate listed Tenpenny as a top anti-vaccination shyster. As a social media vector, she is ranked in the top dozen “influencers.”[2] No surprise, in addition to bloviating about Covid vaccines, someone with such quirkly non-evidence based opinions turns up in litigation as an expert witness.[3]

 

At the time of Tenpenny’s ludicrous testimony before the Ohio state legislature, one astute observer remarked that the AMA Ethical Guidelines specify that medical societies and medical licensing boards are responsible for maintaining high standards for medical testimony, and must assess “claims of false or misleading testimony.”[4] When the testimony is false or misleading, these bodies should discipline the offender “as appropriate.”[5]

The State Medical Board of Ohio stepped up to its responsibility. After receiving hundreds (roughly 350) complaints about Tenpenny’s testimony, the Ohio Board launched an investigation of Tenpenny, who was first licensed as an osteopathic physician in 1984.[6]  The Board’s investigators tried to contact Tenpenny, who apparently evaded engaging with them. Eventually, Thomas Renz, a lawyer for Tenpenny informed the Board that Tenpenny “[d]eclin[ed] to cooperate in the Board’s bad faith and unjustified assault on her licensure, livelihood, and constitutional rights cannot be construed as an admission of any allegations against her.”

After multiple unsuccessful attempts to reach Tenpenny, the Board issued a citation, in 2022, against her for stonewalling the investigation. Tenpenny requested an administrative hearing, set for April 2023, when she would be able to submit her defense in writing. The Board refused to let Tenpenny evade questioning, and suspended her license for failure to comply with the investigation. According to the Board’s Order, “Dr. Tenpenny did not simply fail to cooperate with a Board investigation, she refused to cooperate. *** And that refusal was based on her unsupported and subjective belief regarding the Board’s motive for the investigation. Licensees of the Board cannot simply refuse to cooperate in investigations because they decide they do not like what they assume is the reason for the investigation.”[7]

According to the Board’s Order, Tenpenny has been fined $3,000, and she must satisfy the Board’s conditions before applying for reinstatement. The Ohio Board’s decision is largely based upon a procedural ruling that flowed from Tenpenny’s refusal to cooperate with the Board’s investigation. Most state medical boards have done little to nothing to address the substance of physician misconduct arising out of the COVID pandemic. This month, American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) announced that it was revoking the board certifications of two physicians, Drs. Paul Marik and Pierre Kory, members of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, for engaging in promoting disinformation and invalid opinions about therapies for COVID-19 opinions.[8] Ron Johnson, the quack senator from Wisconsin, predictably and transparently criticized the ABIM’s action with an ad hominem attack on the ABIM as the action of a corporate cabal. Quack physicians of course have a first amendment right to say whatever, but their licensure and their board certification are contingent on basic competence. Both the state boards and the certifying private groups have the right and responsibility to revoke licenses and privileges when physicians demonstrate incompetence and callousness in the face of a pandemic. There is no unqualified right to professional licenses or certifications.

[1] Andrea Salcedo, “A doctor falsely told lawmakers vaccines magnetize people: ‘They can put a key on their forehead. It sticks’,” Washington Post (June 9, 2021); Andy Downing, “What an exceedingly dumb time to be alive,” Columbus Alive (June 10, 2021); Jake Zuckerman, “She says vaccines make you magnetized. This West Chester lawmaker invited her testimony, chair says,” Ohio Capital Journal (July 14, 2021).

[2] The Disinformation Dozen (2021),

[3] Shaw v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 01-707V, 2009 U.S. Claims LEXIS 534, *84 n.40 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 31, 2009) (excluding expert witness opinion testimony from Tenpenny).

[4]  “Epistemic Virtue – Dropping the Dime on Tenpenny” Tortini (July 18, 2021).

[5] A.M.A. Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 9.7.1.

[6] Michael DePeau-Wilson, “Doc Who Said COVID Vax Magnetized People Has License Suspended,” MedPageToday (Aug. 11, 2023); David Gorski, “The Ohio State Medical Board has finally suspended the medical license of antivax quack Sherri Tenpenny,” Science-Based Medicine (Aug, 14, 2023).

[7] In re Sherri J. Tenpenny, D.O., Case No. 22-CRF-0168 State Medical Board of Ohio (Aug. 9, 2023).

[8] David Gorski, “The American Board of Internal Medicine finally acts against two misinformation-spreading doctors,” Science-Based Medicine (Aug. 7, 2023).

Posted in Expert Witnesses, Public Nuisances, Scientific Evidence, Scientific Misconduct | No Comments »

Consensus Rule – Shadows of Validity

April 26th, 2023

Back in 2011, at a Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference, Chief Justice John Roberts took a cheap shot at law professors and law reviews when he intoned:

“Pick up a copy of any law review that you see, and the first article is likely to be, you know, the influence of Immanuel Kant on evidentiary approaches in 18th Century Bulgaria, or something, which I’m sure was of great interest to the academic that wrote it, but isn’t of much help to the bar.”[1]

Anti-intellectualism is in vogue these days. No doubt, Roberts was jocularly indulging in an over-generalization, but for anyone who tries to keep up with the law reviews, he has a small point. Other judges have rendered similar judgments. Back in 1993, in a cranky opinion piece – in a law review – then Judge Richard A. Posner channeled the liar paradox by criticizing law review articles for “the many silly titles, the many opaque passages, the antic proposals, the rude polemics, [and] the myriad pretentious citations.”[2] In a speech back in 2008, Justice Stephen Breyer noted that “[t]here is evidence that law review articles have left terra firma to soar into outer space.”[3]

The temptation to rationalize, and to advocate for reflective equilibrium between the law as it exists, and the law as we think it should be, combine to lead to some silly and harmful efforts to rewrite the law as we know it.  Jeremy Bentham, Mr. Nonsense-on-Stilts, who sits stuffed in the hallway of the University of London, ushered in a now venerable tradition of rejecting tradition and common sense, in proposing all sorts of law reforms.[4]  In the early 1800s, Jeremy Bentham, without much in the way of actual courtroom experience, deviled the English bench and bar with sweeping proposals to place evidence law on what he thought was a rational foundation. As with his naïve utilitarianism, Bentham’s contributions to jurisprudence often ignored the realities of human experience and decision making. The Benthamite tradition of anti-tradition is certainly alive and well in the law reviews.

Still, I have a soft place in my heart for law reviews.  Although not peer reviewed, law reviews provide law students a tremendous opportunity to learn about writing and scholarship through publishing the work of legal scholars, judges, thoughtful lawyers, and other students. Not all law review articles are non-sense on stilts, but we certainly should have our wits about us when we read immodest proposals from the law professoriate.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Professor Edward Cheng has written broadly and insightfully about evidence law, and he certainly has the educational training to do so. Recently, Cheng has been bemused by the expert paradox, which wonders how lay persons, without expertise, can evaluate and judge issues of the admissibility, validity, and correctness of expert opinion. The paradox has long haunted evidence law, and it is at center stage in the adjudication of expert admissibility issues, as well as the trial of technical cases. Recently, Cheng has proposed a radical overhaul to the law of evidence, which would require that we stop asking courts to act as gatekeepers, and to stop asking juries to determine the validity and correctness of expert witness opinions before them. Cheng’s proposal would revert to the nose counting process of Frye and permit consideration of only whether there is an expert witness consensus to support the proffered opinion for any claim or defense.[5] Or in Plato’s allegory of the cave, we need to learn to be content with shadows on the wall rather than striving to know the real thing.

When Cheng’s proposal first surfaced, I wrote briefly about why it was a bad idea.[6] Since his initial publication, a law review symposium was assembled to address and perhaps to celebrate the proposal.[7] The papers from that symposium are now in print.[8] Unsurprisingly, the papers are both largely sympathetic (but not completely) to Cheng’s proposal, and virtually devoid of references to actual experiences of gatekeeping or trials of technical issues.

Cheng contends that the so-called Daubert framework for addressing the admissibility of expert witness opinion is wrong.  He does not argue that the existing law, in the form of Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, does not call for an epistemic standard for both admitting opinion testimony, as well for the fact-finders’ assessments. There is no effort to claim that somehow four Supreme Court cases, and thousand of lower courts, have erroneously viewed the whole process. Rather, Cheng simply asserts non-expert judges cannot evaluate the reliability (validity) of expert witness opinions, and that non-expert jurors cannot “reach independent, substantive conclusions about specialized facts.”[9] The law must change to accommodate his judgment.

In his symposium contribution, Cheng expands upon his previous articulation of his proposed “consensus rule.”[10] What is conspicuously absent, however, is any example of failed gatekeeping that excluded valid expert witness opinion. One example, the appellate decision in Rosen v. Ciba-Geigy Corporation,[11] which Cheng does give, is illustrative of Cheng’s project. The expert witness, whose opinion was excluded, was on the faculty of the University of Chicago medical school; Richard Posner, the appellate judge who wrote the opinion that affirmed the expert witness’s exclusion, was on the faculty of that university’s law school. Without any discussion of the reports, depositions, hearings, or briefs, Cheng concludes that “the very idea that a law professor would tell medical school colleagues that their assessments were unreliable seems both breathtakingly arrogant and utterly ridiculous.”[12]

Except, of course, very well qualified scientists and physicians advance invalid and incorrect claims all the time. What strikes me as breathtakingly arrogant and utterly ridiculous is the judgment of a law professor who has little to no experience trying or defending Rule 702 and 703 issues labeling the “very idea” as arrogant and ridiculous. Aside from its being a petitio principia, we could probably add that the reaction is emotive, uninformed, and uninformative, and that it fails to support the author’s suggestion that “Daubert has it all wrong,” and that “[w]e need a different approach.”

Judges and jurors obviously will never fully understand the scientific issues before them.  If and when this lack of epistemic competence is problematic, we should honestly acknowledge how we are beyond the realm of the Constitution’s seventh amendment. Since Cheng is fantasizing about what the law should be, why not fantasize about not allowing lay people to decide complex scientific issues? Verdicts from jurors who do not have to give reasons for their decisions, and who are not in any sense peers of the scientists whose work they judge are normatively problematic.

Professor Cheng likens his consensus rule to how the standard of care is decided in medical malpractice litigation. The analogy is interesting, but hardly compelling in that it ignores “two schools of thought” doctrine.[13] In litigation of claims of professional malpractice, the “two schools of thought doctrine” is a complete defense.  As explained by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,[14] physicians may defend against claims that they deviated from the standard of care, or of professional malpractice, by adverting to support for their treatment by a minority of professionals in their field:

“Where competent medical authority is divided, a physician will not be held responsible if in the exercise of his judgment he followed a course of treatment advocated by a considerable number of recognized and respected professionals in his given area of expertise.”[15]

The analogy to medical malpractice litigation seems inapt.

Professor Cheng advertises that he will be giving full-length book treatment to his proposal, and so perhaps my critique is uncharitable in looking at a preliminary, (antic?) law review article. Still, his proposal seems to ignore that “general acceptance” renders consensus, when it truly exists, as relevant to both the court’s gatekeeping decisions, and the fact finders’ determination of the facts and issues in dispute. Indeed, I have never seen a Rule 702 hearing that did not involve, to some extent, the assertion of a consensus, or the lack thereof.

To the extent that we remain committed to trials of scientific claims, we can see that judges and jurors often can detect inconsistencies, cherry picking, unproven assumptions, and other aspects of the patho-epistemology of exert witness opinions. It takes a community of scientists and engineers to build a space rocket, but any Twitter moron can determine when a rocket blows up on launch. Judges in particular have (and certainly should have) the competence to determine deviations from the scientific and statistical standards of care that pertain to litigants’ claims.

Cheng’s proposal also ignores how difficult and contentious it is to ascertain the existence, scope, and actual content of scientific consensus. In some areas of science, such as occupational and environmental epidemiology and medicine, faux consensuses are set up by would-be expert witnesses for both claimants and defendants. A search of the word “consensus” in the PubMed database yields over a quarter of a million hits. The race to the bottom is on. Replacing epistemic validity with sociological and survey navel gazing seems like a fool’s errand.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Cheng’s proposal is what happens in the absence of consensus.  Pretty much anything goes, a situation that Cheng finds “interesting,” and I find horrifying:

“if there is no consensus, the legal system’s options become a bit more interesting. If there is actual dissensus, meaning that the community is fractured in substantial numbers, then the non-expert can arguably choose from among the available theories. If the expert community cannot agree, then one cannot possibly expect non-experts to do any better.”[16]

Cheng reports that textbooks and other documents “may be both more accurate and more efficient” evidence of consensus.[17] Maybe; maybe not.  Textbooks are typically often dated by the time they arrive on the shelves, and contentious scientists are not beyond manufacturing certainty or doubt in the form of falsely claimed consensus.

Of course, often, if not most of the time, there will be no identifiable, legitimate consensus for a litigant’s claim at trial. What would Professor Cheng do in this default situation? Here Cheng, fully indulging the frolic, tells us that we

“should hypothetically ask what the expert community is likely to conclude, rather than try to reach conclusions on their own.”[18]

So the default situation transforms jurors into tea-leaf readers of what an expert community, unknown to them, will do if and when there is evidence of a quantum and quality to support a consensus, or when that community gets around to articulating what the consensus is. Why not just toss claims that lack consensus support?

[1] Debra Cassens Weiss, “Law Prof Responds After Chief Justice Roberts Disses Legal Scholarship,” Am. Bar Ass’n J. (July 7, 2011).

[2] Richard A. Posner, “Legal Scholarship Today,” 45 Stanford L. Rev. 1647, 1655 (1993), quoted in Walter Olson, “Abolish the Law Reviews!” The Atlantic (July 5, 2012); see also Richard A. Posner, “Against the Law Reviews: Welcome to a world where inexperienced editors make articles about the wrong topics worse,”
Legal Affairs (Nov. 2004).

[3] Brent Newton, “Scholar’s highlight: Law review articles in the eyes of the Justices,” SCOTUS Blog (April 30, 2012); “Fixing Law Reviews,” Inside Higher Education (Nov. 19, 2012).

[4] “More Antic Proposals for Expert Witness Testimony – Including My Own Antic Proposals” (Dec. 30, 2014).

[5] Edward K. Cheng, “The Consensus Rule: A New Approach to Scientific Evidence,” 75 Vanderbilt L. Rev. 407 (2022).

[6] “Cheng’s Proposed Consensus Rule for Expert Witnesses” (Sept. 15, 2022);
“Further Thoughts on Cheng’s Consensus Rule” (Oct. 3, 2022).

[7] Norman J. Shachoy Symposium, The Consensus Rule: A New Approach to the Admissibility of Scientific Evidence (2022), 67 Villanova L. Rev. (2022).

[8] David S. Caudill, “The ‘Crisis of Expertise’ Reaches the Courtroom: An Introduction to the Symposium on, and a Response to, Edward Cheng’s Consensus Rule,” 67 Villanova L. Rev. 837 (2022); Harry Collins, “The Owls: Some Difficulties in Judging Scientific Consensus,” 67 Villanova L. Rev. 877 (2022); Robert Evans, “The Consensus Rule: Judges, Jurors, and Admissibility Hearings,” 67 Villanova L. Rev. 883 (2022); Martin Weinel, “The Adversity of Adversarialism: How the Consensus Rule Reproduces the Expert Paradox,” 67 Villanova L. Rev. 893 (2022); Wendy Wagner, “The Consensus Rule: Lessons from the Regulatory World,” 67 Villanova L. Rev. 907 (2022); Edward K. Cheng, Elodie O. Currier & Payton B. Hampton, “Embracing Deference,” 67 Villanova L. Rev. 855 (2022).

[9] Embracing Deference at 876.

[10] Edward K. Cheng, Elodie O. Currier & Payton B. Hampton, “Embracing Deference,” 67 Villanova L. Rev. 855 (2022) [Embracing Deference]

[11] Rosen v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 78 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 1996).

[12] Embracing Deference at 859.

[13] “Two Schools of Thought” (May 25, 2013).

[14] Jones v. Chidester, 531 Pa. 31, 40, 610 A.2d 964 (1992).

[15] Id. at 40.  See also Fallon v. Loree, 525 N.Y.S.2d 93, 93 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (“one of several acceptable techniques”); Dailey, “The Two Schools of Thought and Informed Consent Doctrine in Pennsylvania,” 98 Dickenson L. Rev. 713 (1994); Douglas Brown, “Panacea or Pandora’ Box:  The Two Schools of Medical Thought Doctrine after Jones v. Chidester,” 44 J. Urban & Contemp. Law 223 (1993).

[16] Embracing Deference at 861.

[17] Embracing Deference at 866.

[18] Embracing Deference at 876.

Posted in Evidence, Expert Witnesses, Frye, Rule 702, Rule 703, Scientific Evidence | 1 Comment »

Selikoff Timeline & Asbestos Litigation History (Revised)

February 26th, 2023

The critics and cheerleaders of Dr. Irving John Selikoff agree that he was a charming, charismatic, and courageous man, a compassionate physician, and a zealous advocate for worker safety and health. The consensus falls apart over the merits of Selikoff’s actual research, his credentials, and his advocacy tactics.[1]

Selikoff’s collaborators, protégés, and fellow travelers tend to brand any challenge or criticism as “scurrilous.”[2] They attack the messenger for attacking the messenger, who attacked the messenger, u.s.w.. Certainly in his lifetime, Selikoff attracted harsh and vituperative attacks, some of which were mean-spirited and even anti-semitic. Although I am not a Jew, I am, following Jonathan Miller, “Jew-ish, just not the whole hog.” As such, I can appreciate the ire of some of Selikoff’s defenders over the nature of these attacks.

Selikoff’s legitimate achievements should not be diminished, and his defenders are correct to bemoan the ad hominem attacks on Selikoff, based upon ethnicity and personal characteristics. Some attacks, however, were merited. The time has come to stop evaluating the message by its messenger, and to pay attention to the evidence. Selikoff’s defenders and hagiographers are wrong, therefore, to claim that Selikoff’s training, scientific acumen, advocacy, and false positive claims are somehow off limits. Selikoff advanced his scientific and political agenda by promoting his reputation and work, and he thus put his credentials, work, and methods into issue. Selikoff’s contributions to public health in publicizing the dangers of high exposure, long-term asbestos exposure do not privilege every position he took. Selikoff is a difficult case because he was wrong on many issues, and his reputation, authority and prestige ultimately became much greater than the evidence would ultimately support.

Although Selikoff died in 1992, his legacy lives on in the perpetual litigation machine that is run by the litigation industry and Selikoff’s juniors and imitators, who serve as testifying expert witnesses. One of Selikoff’s great achievements, the federalization of worker safety and health in the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,[3] languishes because of inadequate resources for enforcement and frivolous efforts to address non-existent problems, such as the lowering of the crystalline silica permissible exposure limit. Activists have taken to redress the problem by advocating for nugatory “warnings” from remote suppliers, in the face of employer failures to monitor and supervise workers and the workplace, and to provide administrative, engineering, and personal protective controls.

Selikoff diverted regulatory attention from asbestos fiber type, with the result that the OSHA PELs were lowered for both chrysotile and amphibole asbestos, thus leaving the ultra-hazardous crocidolite asbestos in use. Selikoff perpetuated a good deal of mischief and misinformation to keep his myth that all fiber types are the same (and that “asbestos is asbestos is asbestos”). In doing so, he actually hurt many people.

An anonymous snark on Wikipedia noted some of my blog posts about Selikoff, and offered the lame criticism that my writings were not peer reviewed.[4] The snark (Tweedale?) was of course correct on this limited point, but generally in this field, peer review is worth a warm bucket of spit. And there is the matter that the anonymous critic was offering a criticism that was also not peer reviewed.

Selikoffophiles continue to tell tall tales about Selikoff’s work and in particular about how he became involved in asbestos medicine.[5]  So here is a timeline of Selikoff’s life and asbestos work, an update of an earlier version. If anyone notes an error or inconsistency in this time line, please let me know, provide better sources, and ask for a correction. If I am wrong, I will readily note the correction and eat my words, but I am sure they will be quite digestible.[6]

1915-01-15.  Irving John Selikoff was born as Irving Selecoff in the brain basket of America, Brooklyn, New York, to Abraham and Matilda (Tillie) Selecoff.[7]  His father, Abraham, was born on April 6, 1885, in the Kyiv oblast of what is now Ukraine.[8]

1920.  According to the 1920 census, the Selekoff family lived at 816 179th Street, in the Bronx. Irving’s father, Abraham, was self-employed as a hat manufacturer, doing business later as United Headwear Corporation.[9]  The family had two children, Irving, and his older sister, Gladys.

1930. The asbestos workers’ journal published a story about the (non-malignant) risks of asbestos exposure.[10]

1935-06.  Selikoff was graduated from Columbia University, with a B.S. degree.

1935-12-24.  Selikoff arrived in Boston from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, on the S.S. Yarmouth, on December 24, 1935, apparently en route from Scotland.

1936.  Dr. Alice Hamilton, physician and noted labor activist, wrote in a labor union journal to urge more attention to industrial dusts, the knowledge of dangers of which was[11] “still very limited except with regard to silica and asbestos.”

1936-08.  Selikoff sat for the university entrance boards in Scotland.

1936-09-27.  Selikoff married Lydia Kapilian, in the Bronx.[12]

1936-10-12. Irving Selecoff arrives in Liverpool, from New York, aboard the S.S. Samaria.

1936-10.  Selikoff entered Anderson’s College of Medicine, in Glasgow, Scotland.[13]

1936-12-28. Irving John Selikoff is listed in the UK, Medical and Dental Students Registers, 1882-1937, registration date December 28, 1936, in Scotland.

1936.  Alice Hamilton published an article on the risks and benefits of industrial asbestos use, in a key labor unionist journal. Alice Hamilton, “Industrial Poisons,” 43 The American Federationist 707-13 (1936).

1937-04-26.  Selikoff arrived in New York, from Greenock, Scotland, on the S.S. Carinthia.

1937-10-10. Irving Selecoff arrived in Glasgow, Scotland, from New York City, on board the SS. Cameronia.

1938-07-14.  Irving J. Selecoff arrived in Quebec, Canada, from Greenock, Scotland, on the S.S. Duchess Atholl.

1939-06-24.  Irving Selecoff arrived in New York, from Liverpool, London, on the S.S. Mauretania. Because of the developing hostilities in Europe, Selikoff apparently did not return to Glasgow, in the fall of 1939.

1939-11.  Unable to return to Scotland, Selikoff applied to Melbourne University for coursework to finish his non-degree course of qualification for medication practice in the United Kingdom.[14]

1940-03-04.  Selecoff (as his name was then often spelled) arrived in Vancouver from Sydney, on the S.S. Aorangi.

1940-04.  Irving Selikoff was living with his parents, and his married sister and her family, in Rye, New York, according to the 1940 census, taken on April 10, 1940.

1940-05-27.  Selikoff enrolled in the University of Melbourne as a non-degree student, for coursework to finish his qualification for medical license in Scotland.[15]

1941-03-24.  John Selecoff arrived in Los Angeles, California, from Sydney, Australia, on the S.S. Mariposa. According to Bartrip, Selikoff had completed his last course at the University of Melbourne, for his “tailor-made” program, on

1941-02-27. Selikoff never gained entrance to a degree program at Melbourne.[16]

1941-04-21. Irving John Selikoff registered for the draft, in Port Chester, New York.

1941.  Selikoff joined the Mount Sinai Hospital as an assistant in Anatomy and Pathology, “immediately following his university training.”[17]

1943-11-01.  Selikoff received an M.D., degree from Middlesex University,[18] after two semesters in residence. This school was regarded as “substandard” and not approved by the American Medical Association. The school lost its accreditation in 1946, and closed.[19] After receiving this degree, Selikoff continued his efforts to return to Scotland, to complete his “triple qualification” for medical licensure in Scotland, which would allow him to sit for the licensing examination in one of the United States.

1943 – 1944.  Selikoff served as an intern, at the Beth Israel Hospital, in Newark, New Jersey.[20]

1944 – 1946. Selikoff served as a resident, at the Sea View Hospital, in New York City.[21]

1945-04-23.  Selikoff was listed in the British Medical Registry, based upon his qualification by the Scottish Conjoint Board for his work at Anderson’s and his non-degree work at the University of Melbourne.[22]

1943-06-02. Irving J Selecoff arrived in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, from Liverpool, aboard the S.S. Axel Johnson.

1945-06-02.  Selikoff arrived in Montreal, Quebec, from Liverpool, England, on the S.S. Axel Johnson.

1945-12-21. Selikoff’s mother, Tillie, died.

1946-02.  Selikoff married Celia Schiffrin in Manhattan.[23]  It was the second marriage for both bride and groom.

1947.  After having left Mt. Sinai Hospital, in 1943, for an internship and a residency, Selikoff resumed his association with Mt. Sinai Hospital.[24]

1947-06-30. Selikoff’s father, Abraham Selecoff, married Anna Susser, in Manhattan.[25]

1949.  Selikoff opened a medical office at 707 Broadway, Paterson, New Jersey,[26] not far from a factory run by the Union Asbestos and Rubber Company (UNARCO). In the same year, the Selikoffs were living at 965 Fifth Avenue, near 78th Street, in Manhattan.[27]

1950.  Selikoff’s medical practice in Paterson, New Jersey, afforded him the opportunity to observe “the incidence of lung disease among workers at the Union Asbestos and Rubber Company (UNARCO),”[28] which operated one of its factories in Paterson.

1950-04-05. Irving J. Selikoff and his wife Celia resided at 93 Broadway, Paterson, New Jersey, USA, according to the 1950 census. By the early 1950s, Selikoff and his wife had moved to 505 Upper Boulevard, Ridgewood, New Jersey.

1951.  New Jersey lawyer Carl Gelman retained Dr. Irving Selikoff to examine 17 workers from the Paterson plant of Union Asbestos and Rubber Company (UNARCO). Gelman filed workers’ compensation claims on behalf of the UNARCO workers.[29]

1952.  Supported by Selikoff’s report, UNARCO worker Anton Szczesniak settled his worker’s compensation case, involving “intestinal cancer,” for $2,000 in 1952.[30] Selikoff published data on the carcinogenicity of amosite in 1972,[31]  a delay of twenty years.[32]

1952.  Selikoff and colleagues published the results of a clinical trial of isoniazid for tuberculosis patients.[33]

1952.  Selikoff was featured in Life magazine coverage of isoniazid, a chemotherapy for tuberculosis.[34]

1952.  Selikoff was an assistant attending physician for thoracic diseases in the department of thoracic diseases at Mt. Sinai Hospital. In this year, Selikoff delivered the monthly Physiological Chemistry Seminar lecture at Mt. Sinai Hospital on: “Antitubercular Hydrazines,” along with Drs. H. H. Fox and Richard J. Schnitzer, of Hoffman-La Roche.

1954.  UNARCO closed its Paterson, New Jersey plant, and moved it to Tyler, Texas.[35]

1955.  Selikoff received the Albert Lasker Clinical Medical Research Award for his work on the clinical trial of isoniazid to treat tuberculosis, along with Walsh McDermott and Carl Muschenheim, of the Hoffmann-La Roche Research Laboratories, and Edward H. Robitzek, of the Squibb Institute for Medical Research.[36]

1955.  Selikoff’s involvement in the isoniazid clinical trials continued to attract media attention. His first television appearance was panned, but he would later develop considerable public speaking skills.[37]

1955.  Sir Richard Doll published his epidemiologic study of lung cancer among British asbestos workers.[38]  This study was known to Selikoff, who relied upon it in his litigation reports to support the compensation claims of asbestos workers in the 1950s.[39]

1955. In 1955, American labor unions were well aware of the claim that asbestos causes lung cancer. Herbert K. Abrams, union physician and the Medical Director of Local 25 Chicago, Building Service Employees International Union, concluded that asbestos causes cancer in a prominent union journal.[40]

1956.  Selikoff became an associate attending physician for thoracic disease at Mt. Sinai Hospital.

1957.  For many years, Frederick Legrand had been a pipecoverer and asbestos worker for asbestos contracting firms. In February 1956, Legrand filed a successful claim for worker’s compensation for disability due to asbestosis.[41] Attorney William L. Brach filed perhaps the first civil action (as opposed to worker’s compensation claim), on behalf of LeGrand, against Johns-Manville, for asbestos-related disease, on July 17, 1957. Frederick LeGrande v. Johns-Manville Prods. Corp., No. 741-57 (D.N.J.).[42] Trial commenced on March 4, 1959, before the Hon. Honorable Reynier J. Wortendyke, Jr. In the middle of trial, Johns-Manville (JM)  settled the case for $35,000.[43] According to various accounts, JM badly mishandled the defense by falsely asserting that it had no knowledge of potential asbestosis hazards to end-users such as LeGrand. The defense had the dual liability of both being untrue and depriving JM of affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk. JM was apparently able to obtain a stipulation that LeGrand’s condition was not the result of asbestos in JM’s product, which JM used to hide the JM settlement from subsequent claimants. Frederick Legrand died in the fall of 1959.[44]

1957-07. The asbestos insulators’ union’s periodical, distributed to its members, notes that “[t]he problem of hazardous materials was again discussed with the importance of using preventative measures to eliminate inhalation. It is suggested that, when working under dusty conditions, respirators should be used at all times and gloves whenever conditions warrant.”[45]

1957-10. President Sickles, at the International Convention of the Asbestos Heat, Frost and Insulators Union, reported to his union’s delegates that he, “[b]eing well aware of the health hazards in the Asbestos industry, requested authority for the General Executive Board to make a study of the health hazards … that will enable the Board to adopt any policies that will tend to protect the health of our International membership.”[46]

1960.  Dr. J. Christopher Wagner published a case series of mesothelioma among persons exposed to crocidolite, in the region of South Africa where crocidolite is mined and milled. After this publication, the causal role of crocidolite became quickly accepted in the scientific and medical community.[47]

1960-1961.  Selikoff published two papers on the patho-physiology of asbestosis, based on data from 17 UNARCO workers,[48] obtained from his medico-legal evaluations of the men.[49]

 

Irving and Celia Selikoff from their 1961 Brazilian visa documents

1961-05. Asbestos insulators’ union discussed collaboration with scientists to discuss lung cancer and other diseases among its membership.[50]  Union members, intensely interested in legal redress for compensation, became aware of Selikoff’s research hypothesis in advance of Selikoff’s survey of the members’ smoking habits, which the workers had a motive to under report.

1961-11. The Asbestos insulators’ union’s magazine featured a full page warning of the grim reaper urging insulators to “Wear Your Respirator.”[51] The warning was developed under the guidance of C. V. Krieger of Local No. 28, Safety Superintendent at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard.

1962-07-12.  Selikoff visited Asbestos Corporation of America, an intermediary broker of asbestos fibers. In a memorandum Selikoff prepared from his discussions with Wade I. Duym, the general manager of the company, and others, he detailed the widespread use of amphibole asbestos fibers in a variety of products. He noted that amosite was used primarily in the insulation trade, and that it was the asbestos “of choice” for sprayed-on products, high temperature insulating cements and pipecovering (magnesia and calcium silicates). Selikoff described crocidolite, from Africa and Bolivia, as a strong, chemically resistant, relatively inexpensive fiber that was used in asbestos cement products, and in Kent cigarette filters.

1962-09. Selikoff presented to a meeting of the Asbestos Workers, to request their help in conducting his study of insulator mortality and morbidity. Irving Selikoff, “Speech at Asbestos Workers’ Union Annual Meeting,” The Asbestos Worker 8 (Sept. 1962).

1962.  Asbestos insulators’ union acknowledged that its leadership has been collaborating with Dr. Irving Selikoff.[52] In September 1962, Selikoff and colleagues began physical examinations of members of the New York and New Jersey locals.[53] `

1962.  In a publication for Naval personnel, with virtually no circulation in the general industrial community, the United States government acknowledged that shipyard and on-board exposures greatly exceeded the ACGIH’s then current TLV for asbestos.[54]

1963.  Selikoff established the Environmental Sciences Laboratory, later known as the Division of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, in would become the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine’s Department of Community Medicine.

1963-02. The asbestos insulation workers’ union announces that it has begun a large-scale program of examinations for asbestos-related disease in the members of the New York and New Jersey locals.[55]

1964.  Selikoff published his first article on cancer in a cohort of union asbestos insulators from New York and New Jersey.[56] Selikoff and his co-authors failed to disclose funding from the union, or the union members’ awareness of the research hypotheses under investigation.

1964.  In October 1964, Selikoff organized and co-chaired (with Dr. Jacob Churg) a conference, “The Biological Effects of Asbestos, for the New York Academy of Sciences, in New York City. The conference featured presentations and papers from many international investigators. Several presenters, including Selikoff, documented the prevalent use of amphibole asbestos (both crocidolite and amosite) in the United States.[57]

1965.  Papers presented at the 1964 New York Academy of Sciences conference were published in late 1965, in a non-peer reviewed publication, volume 132, of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

1965.  Selikoff testified on behalf of an insulator who claimed that asbestos exposure caused his colorectal cancer.[58] Forty years later, the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) comprehensively reviewed the extant evidence and announced that the evidence was “suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between asbestos exposure and pharyngeal, stomach, and colorectal cancers.”[59] None of Selikoff’s publications, including those on asbestos and colorectal cancer, disclosed his litigation testimonies for claimants.

1966 – 1972.  Selikoff continued to testify frequently in civil action and in worker compensation proceedings for claimants who alleged asbestos-related injuries.[60]  In 1972, Andrew Haas, President of the asbestos workers’ union thanked Selikoff for his “frequent” expert witness testimony on behalf of union members.[61]

1967-09. In an address to the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Selikoff acknowledged the widespread use of amosite, particularly in shipyards, the absence of lung cancer among non-smoking insulation workers, and the failure of more than 9 out of 10 insulators to wear respirators on dusty jobs. See Irving J. Selikoff, Address to the delegates of the twenty-first convention of the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers at 8, 9-10, 24 (Chicago, Illinois, Sept. 1967) (“I have yet to see a lung cancer in an asbestos worker who didn’t smoke cigarettes. … “[C]ancer of the lung could be wiped out in your trade if you people wouldn’t smoke cigarettes, period.”).

1968-09.  Selikoff “warns” the United States of asbestos hazards that existed and continue to exist in the government’s shipyards.[62] The warning was largely about seeking media attention by Selikoff; the government, and especially the Navy, had long known of asbestos hazards.[63]

1968-05.  Selikoff testified that all fibers are equally potent, to Congress in support of a bill that would become the OSH Act.

1968. The Mount Sinai School of Medicine opened in 1968, as part of The City University of New York. The first class in the newly formed medical school had 36 students in the entering class. The school was chartered in 1963. It is now known as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

1969.  Selikoff served as president of the New York Academy of Sciences.

1969-05. Selikoff acknowledged that only four percent of insulators wore a mask despite extensive warnings.[64]

1972.  In a published study of variability in the interpretation of chest radiographs, Selikoff was shown consistently to over-read chest radiographs for potential asbestos-related abnormalities, when compared with other pulmonary experts on pneumoconiosis.[65]

1973.  Selikoff testified for the government in United States v. Reserve Mining Co., No. 5-72 Civil 19 (D. Minn. Sept. 21, 1973).[66]  On September 20, Selikoff testified about the town where Reserve Mining’s taconite mine was located: “I think we ought to have a sign at the entrance to sections of the town ‘Please Close Your Windows Before Driving Through’. I certainly would want to close mine.” When his testimony continued the following day, Selikoff acknowledged that he had been “facetious” in his previous day’s testimony.[67]

1974. After having given “facetious” testimony, Selikoff reduced his testifying activities. Marxist historians Jock McCulloch and Geoffrey Tweedale have falsely suggested that Selikoff “avoided the drama of the courtroom and the role of the expert witness” because of the drain on his time, his desire to avoid antagonizing industry, and his need to prevent discovery of trade union medical files.[68]

1974-05-20.  Selikoff’s father, Abraham Selecoff, died in Florida.[69]

1974.  Selikoff published a review on asbestos and gastrointestinal cancer, without disclosing his funding from the asbestos insulation union or his receipt of fees for litigation work in which he maintained a causal relationship in advance of any data.[70]

1978-07.  The National Cancer Institute (NCI) invited Dr. Hans Weill to co-chair a conference on lung cancer surveillance. Ten days later, the NCI retracted the invitation. When Weill inquired about the reasons for the shoddy treatment, an NCI official (Margaret Sloan) told him that “representatives of organized labor” objected to his participation. Sloan’s superior at NCI stated that Selikoff had raised the question whether the conference’s recommendations would lose credibility if Weill were a co-chair. When asked about his role in this sordid affair, Selikoff equivocated, saying he had “simply” said that “[s]ince Weill was a consultant to the Asbestos Information Center, I didn’t know if this would enhance or detract from hearing all points of view.”[71]

1979-11-05.  Barry Castleman, career testifier for the asbestos lawsuit industry, prepared a memorandum to Selikoff to urge him to resist allowing discovery of asbestos worker union members’ knowledge of the hazards of asbestos.[72]

1980-07-29.  A Newsday journalist reports that Selikoff is loath to talk about himself, and that he threatens to cut short the interview when asked about his background.[73]

1981.  Sir Richard Doll and Professor Richard Peto published a rebuttal to wildly exaggerated asbestos risk assessments based upon Selikoff’s insulator studies.[74]

1984.  Selikoff prepared a report on his group’s epidemiologic study of Electric Boat employees, who were engaged in the construction of submarines.[75]  The data did not fit the Mt. Sinai Catechism of large increased risks.[76]  Selikoff never published these data in a medical journal or a textbook.[77]

1985-03-10. Selikoff retires from Mount Sinai Medical School.[78]

1986-03.  Selikoff’s wife, Celia, died.[79]

1987 – 1989.  Selikoff’s insulator cohort study data took on an outsize importance in litigation because of plaintiffs’ heavy reliance upon his studies in court cases. When litigants asked for these data, Selikoff consistently refused to share, which necessitated federal court intervention.[80]

1988.  Selikoff and William Nicholson prepared a manuscript report of a study of the mortality experience at a New Jersey asbestos product manufacturing plant of Johns Manville.[81] Their report documented the substantial use of crocidolite in various products, and the resulting horrific mesothelioma mortality at this plant. Selikoff never published this crocidolite-exposed cohort, although he tirelessly republished his insulator cohort data repeatedly with the misrepresentation that the insulators were not exposed to crocidolite.

1990-06-07. Selikoff conspired with Ron Motley and others to pervert the course of justice by inviting judges with active asbestos dockets to a one-sided conference on asbestos science, and to pay for their travel and lodging. In his invitation to this ex parte soirée, Selikoff failed to mention that the funding came from plaintiffs’ counsel.[82]  Shortly after the Third Circuit spoke on the Mt. Sinai dress rehearsal for the plaintiffs’ asbestos property damage trial case, Judge Jack Weinstein issued a curious mea culpa. Because of a trial in progress, Judge Weinstein did not attend the “Third Wave” conference, but he and a state judge (Justice Helen Freedman) attended an ex parte private luncheon meeting with Dr. Selikoff. Here is how Judge Weinstein described the event:

“But what I did may have been even worse [than Judge Kelly’s conduct that led to his disqualification]. A state judge and I were attempting to settle large numbers of asbestos cases. We had a private meeting with Dr. Irwin [sic] J. Selikoff at his hospital office to discuss the nature of his research. He had never testified and would never testify. Nevertheless, I now think that it was a mistake not to have informed all counsel in advance and, perhaps, to have had a court reporter present and to have put that meeting on the record.”[83]

What is curious is that Judge Weinstein, usually a careful judge and scholar, was so incorrect about Dr. Selikoff’s having never testified. His error could have been avoided by a simple search in the Westlaw or LexisNexis databases. Judge Weinstein’s account points directly to Dr. Selikoff as the source for this falsehood.[84]

1990-10-02.  Selikoff wrote to Judge Jack Weinstein and Justice Helen Freedman, presumably after the “regrettable” ex parte luncheon meeting, to hold forth with his views on the health effects of occupational and para-occupational exposure to asbestos.

1992-05-20.  Selikoff died several months before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit condemned the Selikoff-Motley conspiracy.[85]

2013.  Follow up of the national insulator cohort fails to support multiplicative interaction between smoking and asbestos for lung cancer outcomes in the absence of asbestosis.[86]

[1] Rachel Maines, Asbestos and Fire: Technological Tradeoffs and the Body at Risk 155 (2005) (“charming, courageous, and compassion medical professional with more charisma than credentials”).

[2] Jock McCulloch & Geoffrey Tweedale, “Shooting the messenger: the vilification of Irving J. Selikoff,” 37 Internat’l J. Health Services 619 (2007); “Scientific Prestige, Reputation, Authority & The Creation of Scientific Dogmas” (Oct. 4, 2014); David Egilman, Geoffrey Tweedale, Jock McCulloch, William Kovarik, Barry Castleman, William Longo, Stephen Levin, and Susanna Rankin Bohme, “P.W.J. Bartrip’s Attack on Irving J. Selikoff,” 46 Am. J. Indus. Med. 151, 152 (2004) [Egilman (2004)].

[3] 84 Stat. 1590, et seq., 29 U.S.C. § 651, et seq.

[4] “The Legacy of Irving Selikoff & Wicked Wikipedia” (Mar. 1, 2015). See also “Hagiography of Selikoff” (Sept. 26, 2015); “Historians Should Verify Not Vilify or Abilify – The Difficult Case of Irving Selikoff” (Jan. 4, 2014).

[5] See, e.g., Philip Landrigan, “Stephen Levin, MD, honored with the Collegium Ramazzini’s Irving J. Selikoff Memorial Award in 2009.”

[6] See Wikipedia, “Irving Selikoff” (last visited Dec. 4, 2018).

[7] Kings County Birth Certificate no. 4595 (Jan. 15, 1915). His family later adopted the surname Selikoff. Irving Selikoff’s social security records list his father as Abraham Selikoff and his mother as Tillie Katz.

[8] Abraham Selecoff World War II draft registration, serial no. U1750.

[9] Abraham Selecoff World War II draft registration, serial no. U1750.

[10] See “The Asbestos Menace,” The Asbestos Worker 9-11 (Sept. 1930).

[11] Alice Hamilton, “Industrial Poisons,” American Federationist (1936). This journal was “The Official Magazine of the American Federation of Labor.”

[12] Bronx marriage certificate no. 8246 (1936); Bronx marriage license no. 8652 (1936). Irving’s parents were listed as Abraham Selikoff and Tillie Katz. His residence was at 109 W. 112th Street. Lydia was listed as the daughter of Mendel Kapilian and Bessie Weller. Irving and Lydia were divorced sometime between 1939 and 1941. The marriage certificates stated Lydia to have been 21 years old. Her Social Security records (SSN 112-052-2143), however, gave her birth date as April 22, 1917, (making her 19), and subsequent marriage names of Quint and Teichner.

[13] This and other details of Selikoff’s medical education come from Peter Bartrip’s exposé. Although Bartrip’s research was attacked for its allegedly gratuitous attacks on Selikoff’s research prowess, Bartrip’s account of Selikoff’s medical education in Scotland, Australia, and the United States has gone largely unrebutted, and must for the present be accepted. Peter W.J. Bartrip, “Irving John Selikoff and the Strange Case of the Missing Medical Degrees,” 58 J. History Med. 8 (2003) [Bartrip 2003]; Peter Bartrip, “Around the World in Nine Years: A Medical Education Revisited,” 59 J. History of Med. 135 (2004). One group of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses took Bartrip to task for not disclosing that he had served as a defense expert witness, but none of the complainants disclosed their substantial testimonial adventures for the litigation industry! While making some interesting points, these critics of Bartrip did not really contest his historical work on Selikoff: “Bartrip’s critiques of Anderson’s College (AC) and Middlesex University School of Medicine (MSUM) may be accurate, but are beside the point.” David Egilman, Geoffrey Tweedale, Jock McCulloch, William Kovarik, Barry Castleman, William Longo, Stephen Levin, and Susanna Rankin Bohme, “P.W.J. Bartrip’s Attack on Irving J. Selikoff,” 46 Am. J. Indus. Med. 151, 152 (2004).

[14] Bartrip 2003, at 15 & n.44-51.

[15] Bartrip 2003, at 17 & n.54-55.

[16] Bartrip 2003 at 18.

[17] William J. Nicholson & Alvin S. Teirstein, “Remembering Irving J. Selikoff,”  61 Mt. Sinai J. Med. 500 (1994) [Nicholson & Teirstein]. This account seems doubtful; Selikoff would not have an M.D. degree until 1943, and then from a school that was about to lose its accreditation.

[18] See Stephen Rushmore, “Middlesex University School of Medicine,” 230 New Engl. J. Med. 217 (1944).

[19] Anthony Seaton, “The Strange Case of Irving Selikoff,” 60 Occup. Med. 53 (2010); Peter W.J. Bartrip, “Irving John Selikoff and the Strange Case of the Missing Medical Degrees,” 58 J. History Med. 3, 27 & n.88-92 (2003) [cited as Bartrip].

[20] Bartrip 2003 at 22.

[21] Bartrip 2003 at 22.

[22] Bartrip 2003 at 21.

[23] New York County marriage license no. 3879 (Feb. 2, 1946). Celia had been married to Nathan Michaels in 1937. Manhattan Marriage License no. 21454 (1937).

[24] Nicholson & Teirstein.

[25] Manhattan Marriage License  21527 (1947).

[26] City Directory of Paterson, New Jersey at p. 218 (1949).

[27] Manhattan Telephone Directory (1949).

[28] George W. Conk, “Deadly Dust: Occupational Health and Safety as a Driving Force in Workers’ Compensation Law and the Development of Tort Doctrine,” 69 Rutgers L. Rev. 1140, 1154 & n. 136 (2017).

[29] Jon L. Gelman, “History of Asbestos and the Law” (Jan. 2, 2001). Carl Gelman was a life-long Paterson resident. His legal practice specialized in workers’ compensation, and he chaired state bar association’s workers’ compensation section for several years. His practice represented claimants from 1936, until his retirement in 1986. In the mid-1970s, with Karl Asch, Gelman’s firm sued asbestos suppliers to Raybestos Manhattan on behalf of multiple employees.Gelman died on February 24, 2009. “Obituary for Carl Gelman,” The Record/Herald News (Mar. 16, 2009); “163 Who Had Jobs at Raybestos Sue,” N.Y. Times (May 7, 1975). The suit for $326 million settled for $15.5 million.

[30] Barry I. Castleman, Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects at 142 (1984); Matt Mauney, “Unarco,” Mesothelioma Center (Nov. 2018). Of course, there were no data to support this claim in 1952. Selikoff was publically and positionally committed to his causal hypothesis as a conclusion well in advance of conducting any studies or having any supporting data.

[31] Irving J. Selikoff, E. Cuyler Hammond, and Jacob Churg, “The carcinogenicity of amosite asbestos,” 25 Arch. Envt’l Health 183 (1972). This 1972 publication was the first epidemiologic study on the carcinogenicity of amosite.

[32] David E. Lilienfeld, “The Silence: The Asbestos Industry and Early Occupational Cancer Research – A Case Study,” 81 Am. J. Pub. Health 791 (1991).

[33] Irving J. Selikoff, Edward H. Robitzek, and George G. Ornstein, “Treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis with hydrazine derivatives of isonicotinic acid,” 150 J. Am. Med. Ass’n 973 (1952).

[34] “TB Milestone,” Life (Mar. 3, 1952).

[35] Irving J. Selikoff, “Asbestos in Paterson, New Jersey and Tyler, Texas – A Tale of Two Cities,” Transcript of Lecture (Houston, Texas, Oct. 11, 1979).

[36] See “Isoniazid for treating tuberculosis.”

[37] See “Medical Horizons,” Broadcasting * Telecasting at 14 (Nov. 21, 1955) (describing Selikoff as a plodding presenter). See also “Irving Selikoff – Media Plodder to Media Zealot” (Sept. 9, 2014).

[38] Richard Doll, “Mortality from Lung Cancer in Asbestos Workers,”  12 Br. J. Indus. Med. 81 (1955).

[39] Selikoff letter to Thomas Mancuso (Mar. 30, 1989).

[40] Herbert K. Abrams, “Cancer in Industry,” American Federationist (1955). Dr. Abrams’ article was republished in many union newsletters. See Herbert K. Abrams, “Cancer in Industry,” 69 The Painter & Decorator 15, 16 (Mar. 1955); see also Lester Breslow, LeMar Hoaglin, Gladys Rasmussen & Herbert K. Abrams, “Occupations and Cigarette Smoking as Factors in Lung Cancer,” 44 Am. J. Pub. Health. 171, 171 (1954).

[41] A. C. & S., Inc. v. Asner, 104 Md. App. 608, 633, 657 A.2d 379 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995).

[42] Paul Brodeur, Outrageous Misconduct: The Asbestos Industry on Trial 236-39 (1985). According to Brodeur’s account, Johns-Manville’s defense was clever by halves. By claiming that the company had no knowledge that asbestos could be harmful to applicators such as LeGrand, the company deprived itself of assumption-of-risk and contributory negligence defenses.  The company also set itself up to be brutally contradicted by internal documents and communications that showed an awareness of hazards to pipecoverers. By the time J-M understood that the question of responsibility required acknowledging potential hazards that were in the control of the contractors themselves (such as the use of proper respirators and the like), the company filed for bankruptcy.

[43] Greg Gordon, “Health studies drew little action,” Star Tribune (Nov. 9, 2003); Wondie Russell, “Memorandum re Frederick LeGrande v. J-M Products Corp,”(Nov. 3, 1982).

[44] The Freehold Transcript and The Monmouth Inquirer (Freehold, New Jersey) at 17 (Thurs., Oct. 22, 1959).

[45] Asbestos Worker (July 1957).

[46] The Asbestos Worker at 1 (Oct, 1957) (reporting on the Asbestos Workers’ 19th General Convention).

[47] See J. Christopher Wagner, C.A. Sleggs, and Paul Marchand, “Diffuse pleural mesothelioma and asbestos exposure in the North Western Cape Province,” 17 Br. J. Indus. Med. 260 (1960); J. Christopher Wagner, “The discovery of the association between blue asbestos and mesotheliomas and the aftermath,” 48 Br. J. Indus. Med. 399 (1991).

[48] Arthur M. Langer, “Asbestos Studies in the Environmental Sciences Laboratory Mount Sinai School of Medicine 1965 – 1985: Investigations Reflecting State-of-the-Art; Contributions to the Understanding of Asbestos Medicine” (Unpublished MS, Nov. 7, 2008).

[49] Alvin S. Tierstein, A. Gottlieb, Mortimer E. Bader, Richard A. Bader & Irving Selikoff, “Pulmonary mechanics in asbestosis of the lungs,” 8 Clin. Res. 256 (1960); Mortimer E. Bader, Richard A. Bader & Irving Selikoff, “Pulmonary function in asbestosis of the lung; an alveolar-capillary block syndrome, 30 Am. J. Med. 235 (1961).

[50] Asbestos Worker (May 1961) (“The subject matter of Health Hazards was discussed and President Sickles reported on the possibility of an early meeting with people connected with the Medical Association for the purpose of running various tests on certain materials used by our membership in order to determine the extent of their contribution to lung cancer, silicosis, asbestosis, tuberculosis, etc.”).

[51] 15 The Asbestos Worker at 29 (Nov. 1961).

[52] Asbestos Worker (May 1962) (“President Sickles advised the Board as to a meeting which had been held with Vice President Rider and a Dr. Irving Selikoff, of the Paterson Clinic in connection with our issue on Health Hazards and the Committee on Health Hazards with the approval of the Board instructed President Sickles to continue his efforts in this direction.”)

[53] Asbestos Worker at 25 (Feb. 1963).

[54] Capt. H.M. Robbins & William T. Marr, “Asbestosis,” 19 Safety Review 10 (1962) (noting that asbestos dust counts of 200 million particles per cubic foot were not uncommon during insulation ripouts onboard naval vessels).

[55] “Progress Report on Health Hazards,” 16 The Asbestos Worker 25 (Feb. 1963) (the examination were arranged by President Carl Sickles, Vice-President Hugh Mulligan and Vice-President George Rider of the Health Hazards Committee).

[56] Irving J. Selikoff, Jacob Churg, and E. Cuyler Hammond, “Asbestos Exposure and Neoplasia,” 188 J. Am. Med. Ass’n 22 (1964).

[57] Irving J. Selikoff, Jacob Churg, E. Cuyler Hammond, “The Occurrence of Asbestosis among Insulation Workers in the United States,” 132 Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 139, 142 (1965) (“In later specimens so obtained, crocidolite has also been found. Moreover, materials used for ship insulation, while containing the same amounts of asbestos as above, began in 1934 to have significant amounts of amosite in addition to chrysotile, because of the lighter weight of the material.”); Harrington, “Chemical Studies of Asbestos,” 132 Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 31, 41 (1965) (reporting the finding of chrysotile and crocidolite asbestos in equal proportions in specimens of 85% magnesia pipe-covering sections); N.W. Hendry, “The Geology, Occurrences, and Major Uses of Asbestos 132 Annals N.Y. Acad. Sci. 12, 19 (1965) (reporting that, in 1963, the U.S. used  22,000 tons of amosite in manufactured products, and 17,000 tons of crocidolite in acid-resistent filters, packings, insulations, and certain types of lagging. United States Department of Commerce statistics show that for the years 1957 to 1962, more crocidolite was used in the United States than was amosite. In 1962, the use of blue was twice as great as that for brown. 132 Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. at 753, Table 17 (1965); see also id. at 762, Table 23 (1965) (South African blue fiber imports exceeded brown fiber imports, starting about 1954). See also “Selikoff and the Mystery of the Disappearing Amphiboles” (Dec. 10, 2010); James R. Millette, Steven Compton, and Christopher DePasquale, “Microscopical Analyses of Asbestos-Cement Pipe and Board,” 66 The Microscope 3 (2018) (reporting analyses of cement formulations with substantial crocidolite).

[58]  “Health Hazard Progress Notes,”16 The Asbestos Worker 13 (May 1966) (“A recent decision has widened the range of compensable diseases for insulation workers even further. A member of Local No. 12. Unfortunately died of a cancer of the colon. Dr. Selikoff reported to the compensation court that his research showed that these cancers of the intestine were at least three times as common among the insulation workers as in men of the same age in the general population. Based upon Dr. Selikoff’s testimony, the Referee gave the family a compensation award, holding that the exposure to many dusts during employment was responsible for the cancer. The insurance company appealed this decision. A special panel of the Workman’s Compensation Board reviewed the matter and agreed with the Referee’s judgement and affirmed the compensation award. This was the first case in which a cancer of the colon was established as compensable and it is likely that this case will become an historical precedent.”)

[59] Jonathan Samet, et al., eds., Institute of Medicine Review of Asbestos: Selected Cancers (2006); see also Richard Doll & Julian Peto, Asbestos: Effects on health of exposure to asbestos 8 (1985) (“In particular, there are no grounds for believing that gastrointestinal cancers in general are peculiarly likely to be caused by asbestos exposure.”).

[60] “Selikoff and the Mystery of the Disappearing Testimony” (Dec. 3, 2010); see, e.g., Barros v. United States, 147 F.Supp. 340, 343-44 (E.D.N.Y. 1957) (noting that Dr. Selikoff testified for seaman suing for maintenance and cure as a result of a slip and fall; finding for respondent against libelant); DeRienzo v. Passaic Fire Dept., reported in The News (Paterson, New Jersey) at 27 (Feb. 14, 1957) (Selikoff was a witness for the claimant); Bradshaw v. Twin City Insulation Co. Ltd., Indus. Ct. Indiana, Claim No. O.D.1454 (Oct. 14, 1966); Bradshaw v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., Civ. Action No. 29433, E. D. Mich. S. Div. (July 6, 1967); Bambrick v. Asten Hill Mfg. Co., Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 664 (1972); Tomplait v. Combustion Engineering Inc.., E. D. Tex. Civ. Action No. 5402 (March 4, 1968); Babcock & Wilcox, Inc. v. Steiner, 258 Md. 468, 471, 265 A.2d 871 (1970) (affirming workman compensation award for asbestosis); Rogers v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., Cir. Ct. Mo., 16th Jud. Cir., Div. 9, Civ. Action No. 720,071 (Feb. 19, 1971); Utter v. Asten-Hill Mfg. Co., 453 Pa. 401 (1973); Karjala v Johns-Manville Products Corp., D. Minn., Civ. Action Nos. 5–71 Civ. 18, and Civ. 40 (Feb. 8, 1973); Culp Industrial Insulation v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 57 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 599, 601-602 (1981).

[61] Andrew Haas, Comments from the General President, 18 Asbestos Worker (Nov. 1972); see also Peter W.J. Bartrip, “Irving John Selikoff and the Strange Case of the Missing Medical Degrees,” 58 J. History Med. 3, 27 & n.88-92 (2003) (citing Haas).

[62] Thomas O’Toole, “U.S. Warned of Asbestos Peril,” Wash. Post. A4 (Dec. 4, 1968).

[63] “The United States Government’s Role in the Asbestos Mess” (Jan. 31, 2012). See also Kara Franke & Dennis Paustenbach, “Government and Navy knowledge regarding health hazards of Asbestos: A state of the science evaluation (1900 to 1970),” 23(S3) Inhalation Toxicology 1 (2011); Capt. H.M. Robbins & W.T. Marr, “Asbestosis,” Safety Review (Oct. 1962); See also Walter Olson, “Asbestos awareness pre-Selikoff,” (Oct. 19, 2007).

[64] “Green Sheet,” The Asbestos Worker (May 1969).

[65] See Charles E. Rossiter, “Initial repeatability trials of the UICC/Cincinnati classification of the radiographic appearances of pneumoconioses,” 29 Brit. J. Indus. Med. 407 (1972) (among physician readers of chest radiographs, Selikoff was at the extreme of least likely to call a film normal (less than half the average of all readers), and the most likely to interpret films to show excess profusion of small irregular linear densities). See “Selikoff and the Mystery of the Disappearing Asbestosis” (Dec. 6, 2010). The unions, of course, interested in maximizing compensation for their members loved Selikoff’s over-reading of chest films. Selikoff’s colleagues (Ruth Lilis) routinely teased Selikoff about not being able to read chest radiographs. Selikoff was rumored to have taken and failed the NIOSH B-Reader examination, a rumor which needs to be resolved by a FOIA request.

[66] United States v. Reserve Mining Co. See United States v. Reserve Mining Co., 56 F.R.D. 408 (D.Minn.1972); Armco Steel Corp. v. United States, 490 F.2d 688 (8th Cir. 1974); United States v. Reserve Mining Co., 380 F.Supp. 11 (D.Minn.1974); Reserve Mining Co. v. United States, 498 F.2d 1073 (8th Cir. 1974); Minnesota v. Reserve Mining Co., 418 U.S. 911 (1974); Minnesota v. Reserve Mining Co., 419 U.S. 802 (1974); United States v. Reserve Mining Co., 394 F.Supp. 233 (D.Minn.1974); Reserve Mining Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 514 F.2d 492 (8th Cir. 1975); Minnesota v. Reserve Mining Co., 420 U.S. 1000, 95 S.Ct. 1441, 43 L.Ed.2d 758 (1975); Reserve Mining Co. v. Lord, 529 F.2d 181 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Reserve Mining Co., 408 F.Supp. 1212 (D.Minn.1976); United States v. Reserve Mining Co., 412 F.Supp. 705 (D.Minn.1976); United States v. Reserve Mining Co., 417 F.Supp. 789 (D.Minn.1976); United States v. Reserve Mining Co., 417 F.Supp. 791 (D.Minn.1976); 543 F.2d 1210 (1976).

[67] Robert V. Bartlett, The Reserve Mining Controversy: Science, Technology, and Environmental Quality 140-41 (1980) (describing Selikoff’s testimony).

[68] Jock McCulloch & Geoffrey Tweedale, Defending the Indefensible: The Global Asbestos Industry and its Fight for Survival: The Global Asbestos Industry and its Fight for Survival 95 & n.36 (2008). These authors ignored other reasons Selikoff later stood down from the witness chair: his self-serving insistence upon the importance of his own research detracted from the work of previous authors (e.g., Sir Richard Doll, J. Christopher Wagner, et al.) in litigation of personal injury claims of asbestos health effects. Plaintiffs’ counsel needed to push back the dates of first knowledge of asbestos health effects well before Selikoff’s first insulator study in 1964. The litigation industry needed Selikoff to continue to generate publicity, and to stop testifying. Selikoff surely must have had some concerns about how further testifying would eventually lead to questions about his credentials. Furthermore, Selikoff had an entire generation of younger, less politically visible colleagues at Mt. Sinai to fill the ranks of expert witnesses for the litigation industry (Miller, Levin, Nicholson, Lillis, Daum, Anderson, Frank, et al.).

[69] Obituary for Abraham Selecoff, The Miami Herald (May 22, 1974).

[70] Irving J. Selikoff, “Epidemiology of gastrointestinal cancer,” 9 Envt’l Health Persp. 299 (1974) (arguing for causal conclusion between asbestos and all gastrointestinal cancers).

[71] Nicholas Wade, “The Science and Politics of a Disinvitation,” 201 Science 892 (1978) (commenting that the NCI was negligent in failing to evaluate the ad hominem opinions given to it by Selikoff).

[72] See “The Selikoff – Castleman Conspiracy” (Mar. 13, 2011); “What Happens When Historians Have Bad Memories” (Mar. 15, 2014); “Castleman-Selikoff – Can Their Civil Conspiracy Survive Death?” (Dec. 3, 2018). In 2014, Castleman testified that he has no recollection of the memorandum, but he did not deny that had written it.

[73] B.D. Colen, “Knowing When the Chemistry is Right,” Newsday (Suffolk Edition) (Melville, New York) at 85 (Tue., July 29, 1980).

[74] See Richard Doll & Richard Peto, “The causes of cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today,” 66 J. Nat’l Cancer Inst. 1191 (1981).

[75] Irving Selikoff & William Nicholson, “Mortality Experience of 1,918 Employees of the Electric Boat Company, Groton, Connecticut January 1, 1967 – June 30, 1978” (Jan. 27, 1984).

[76] “The Mt. Sinai Catechism” (June 5, 2013).

[77] “Irving Selikoff and the Right to Peaceful Dissembling” (June 5, 2013).

[78] Leo H. Caney, “Noted Cancer Researcher Altering Role,” N.Y. Times (Mar. 10, 1985).

[79] Celia Selikoff Social Security Records, SSN 064-12-6401. Celia was born on Sept. 12, 1908.

[80] A New York state trial court initially sided with Selikoff over this subpoena battle. In re R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 136 Misc.2d 282, 518 N.Y.S.2d 729 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. 1987). The federal court subsequently required Selikoff to honor another litigant’s subpoena. In re American Tobacco Co., 866 F.2d 552 (2d Cir. 1989).

[81] William J. Nicholson & Irving J. Selikoff, “Mortality experience of asbestos factory workers; effect of differing intensities of asbestos exposure”: unpublished manuscript produced in litigation (1988) (“[O]ther asbestos varieties (amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite) were also used for some products. In general, chrysotile was used for textiles, roofing materials, asbestos cements, brake and friction products, fillers for plastics, etc.; chrysotile with or without amosite for insulation materials; chrysotile and crocidolite for a variety of asbestos cement products.”).

[82] In re School Asbestos Litigation, 977 F.2d 764 (3d Cir. 1992). See Cathleen M. Devlin, “Disqualification of Federal Judges – Third Circuit Orders District Judge James McGirr Kelly to Disqualify Himself So As To Preserve ‘The Appearance of Justice’ Under 28 U.S.C. § 455 – In re School Asbestos Litigation (1992),” 38 Villanova L. Rev. 1219 (1993); Bruce A. Green, “May Judges Attend Privately Funded Educational Programs? Should Judicial Education Be Privatized?: Questions of Judicial Ethics and Policy,” 29 Fordham Urb. L.J. 941, 996-98 (2002).

[83] Jack B. Weinstein, “Learning, Speaking, and Acting: What Are the Limits for Judges?” 77 Judicature 322, 326 (May-June 1994) (emphasis added). Judge Weinstein’s false statement that Selikoff “had never testified” not only reflects an incredible and uncharacteristic naiveté by a distinguished evidence law scholar, but the false statement was in a journal, Judicature, which was widely circulated to state and federal judges. The source of the lie appears to have been Selikoff himself in the ethically dodgy ex parte meeting with judges actively presiding over asbestos personal injury cases.

[84] Jack B. Weinstein, “Learning, Speaking, and Acting: What Are the Limits for Judges?” 77 Judicature 322, 326 (May-June 1994). The point apparently weighed on Judge Weinstein’s conscience. He repeated his mea culpa almost verbatim, along with the false statement about Selikoff’s never having testified, in a law review article in 1994, and then incorporated the misrepresentation into a full-length book. See Jack B. Weinstein, “Limits on Judges’ Learning, Speaking and Acting – Part I- Tentative First Thoughts: How May Judges Learn?” 36 Ariz. L. Rev. 539, 560 (1994) (“He [Selikoff] had never testified and would   never testify.”); Jack B. Weinstein, Individual Justice in Mass Tort Litigation: The Effect of Class Actions, Consolidations, and other Multi-Party Devices 117 (1995) (“A court should not coerce independent eminent scientists, such as the late Dr. Irving Selikoff, to testify if, like he, they prefer to publish their results only in scientific journals.”).

[85] Social Security records for Irving John Selikoff, social sec. no. 085-16-1882. See Bruce Lambert, “Irving J. Selikoff Is Dead at 77; TB Researcher Fought Asbestos,” N.Y. Times (May 22, 1992).

[86] Steve Markowitz, Stephen Levin, Albert Miller, and Alfredo Morabia, “Asbestos, Asbestosis, Smoking and Lung Cancer: New Findings from the North American Insulator Cohort,” Am. J. Respir. & Critical Care Med. (2013)).

Posted in Asbestos, Expert Witnesses, State of the Art | 62 Comments »

Reference Manual – Desiderata for 4th Edition – Part IV – Confidence Intervals

February 10th, 2023

Putting aside the idiosyncratic chapter by the late Professor Berger, most of the third edition of the Reference Manual presented guidance on many important issues.  To be sure, there are gaps, inconsistencies, and mistakes, but the statistics chapter should be a must-read for federal (and state) judges. On several issues, especially statistical in nature, the fourth edition could benefit from an editor to ensure that the individual chapters, written by different authors, actually agree on key concepts.  One such example is the third edition’s treatment of confidence intervals.[1]

The “DNA Identification” chapter noted that the meaning of a confidence interval is subtle,[2] but I doubt that the authors, David Kaye and George Sensabaugh, actually found it subtle or difficult. In the third edition’s chapter on statistics, David Kaye and co-author, the late David A. Freedman, gave a reasonable definition of confidence intervals in their glossary:

“confidence interval. An estimate, expressed as a range, for a parameter. For estimates such as averages or rates computed from large samples, a 95% confidence interval is the range from about two standard errors below to two standard errors above the estimate. Intervals obtained this way cover the true value about 95% of the time, and 95% is the confidence level or the confidence coefficient.”[3]

Intervals, not the interval, which is correct. This chapter made clear that it was the procedure of obtaining multiple samples with intervals that yielded the 95% coverage. In the substance of their chapter, Kaye and Freedman are explicit about how intervals are constructed, and that:

“the confidence level does not give the probability that the unknown parameter lies within the confidence interval.”[4]

Importantly, the authors of the statistics chapter named names; that is, they cited some cases that butchered the concept of the confidence interval.[5] The fourth edition will have a more difficult job because, despite the care taken in the statistics chapter, many more decisions have misstated or misrepresented the meaning of a confidence interval.[6] Citing more cases perhaps will disabuse federal judges of their reliance upon case law for the meaning of statistical concepts.

The third edition’s chapter on multiple regression defined confidence interval in its glossary:

“confidence interval. An interval that contains a true regression parameter with a given degree of confidence.”[7]

The chapter avoided saying anything obviously wrong only by giving a very circular definition. When the chapter substantively described a confidence interval, it ended up giving an erroneous one:

“In general, for any parameter estimate b, the expert can construct an interval around b such that there is a 95% probability that the interval covers the true parameter. This 95% confidence interval is given by: b ± 1.96 (SE of b).”[8]

The formula provided is correct, but the interpretation of a 95% probability that the interval covers the true parameter is unequivocably wrong.[9]

The third edition’s chapter by Shari Seidman Diamond on survey research, on the other hand, gave an anodyne example and a definition:

“A survey expert could properly compute a confidence interval around the 20% estimate obtained from this sample. If the survey were repeated a large number of times, and a 95% confidence interval was computed each time, 95% of the confidence intervals would include the actual percentage of dentists in the entire population who would believe that Goldgate was manufactured by the makers of Colgate.

                 *  *  *  *

Traditionally, scientists adopt the 95% level of confidence, which means that if 100 samples of the same size were drawn, the confidence interval expected for at least 95 of the samples would be expected to include the true population value.”[10]

Similarly, the third edition’s chapter on epidemiology correctly defined the confidence interval operationally as a process of iterative intervals that collectively cover the true value in 95% of all the intervals:

“A confidence interval provides both the relative risk (or other risk measure) found in the study and a range (interval) within which the risk likely would fall if the study were repeated numerous times.”[11]

Not content to leave it well said, the chapter’s authors returned to the confidence interval and provided another, more problematic definition, a couple of pages later in the text:

“A confidence interval is a range of possible values calculated from the results of a study. If a 95% confidence interval is specified, the range encompasses the results we would expect 95% of the time if samples for new studies were repeatedly drawn from the same population.”[12]

The first sentence refers to “a study”; that is, one study, one range of values. The second sentence then tells us that “the range” (singular, presumably referring back to the single “a study”), will capture 95% of the results from many resamplings from the same population. Now the definition is not framed with respect to the true population parameter, but the results from many other samples. The authors seem to have given the first sample’s confidence interval the property of including 95% of all future studies, and that is incorrect. From reviewing the case law, courts remarkably have gravitated to the second, incorrect definition.

The glossary to the third edition’s epidemiology chapter clearly, however, runs into the ditch:

“confidence interval. A range of values calculated from the results of a study within which the true value is likely to fall; the width of the interval reflects random error. Thus, if a confidence level of .95 is selected for a study, 95% of similar studies would result in the true relative risk falling within the confidence interval.”[13]

Note that the sentence before the semicolon talked of “a study” with “a range of values,” and that there is a likelihood of that range including the “true value.” This definition thus used the singular to describe the study and to describe the range of values.  The definition seemed to be saying, clearly but wrongly, that a single interval from a single study has a likelihood of containing the true value. The second full sentence ascribed a probability, 95%, to the true relative risk’s falling within “the interval.” To point out the obvious, “the interval,” is singular, and refers back to “a study,” also singular. At best, this definition was confusing; at worst, it was wrong.

The Reference Manual has a problem beyond its own inconsistencies, and the refractory resistance of the judiciary to statistical literacy. There are any number of law professors and even scientists who have held out incorrect definitions and interpretations of confidence intervals.  It would be helpful for the fourth edition to caution its readers, both bench and bar, to the prevalent misunderstandings.

Here, for instance, is an example of a well-credentialed statistician, who gave a murky definition in a declaration filed in federal court:

“If a 95% confidence interval is specified, the range encompasses the results we would expect 95% of the time if samples for new studies were repeatedly drawn from the same population.”[14]

The expert witness correctly identifies the repeated sampling, but specifies a 95% probability to “the range,” which leaves unclear whether it is the range of all intervals or “a 95% confidence interval,” which is in the antecedent of the statement.

Much worse was a definition proffered in a recent law review article by well-known, respected authors:

“A 95% confidence interval, in contrast, is a one-sided or two-sided interval from a data sample with 95% probability of bounding a fixed, unknown parameter, for which no nondegenerate probability distribution is conceived, under specified assumptions about the data distribution.”[15]

The phrase “for which no nondegenerate probability distribution is conceived,” is unclear as to whether the quoted phrase refers to the confidence interval or to the unknown parameter. It seems that the phrase modifies the noun closest to it in the sentence, the “fixed, unknown parameter,” which suggests that these authors were simply trying to emphasize that they were giving a frequentist interpretation and not conceiving of the parameter as a random variable as Bayesians would. The phrase “no nondegenerate” appears to be a triple negative, since a degenerate distribution is one that does not have a variation. The phrase makes the definition obscure, and raises questions what is being excluded by the phrase.

The more concerning aspect of the quoted footnote is its obfuscation of the important distinction between the procedure of repeatedly calculating confidence intervals (which procedure has a 95% success rate in the long run) and the probability that any given instance of the procedure, in a single confidence interval, contains the parameter. The latter probability is either zero or one.

The definition’s reference to “a” confidence interval, based upon “a” data sample, actually leaves the reader with no way of understanding the definition to be referring to the repeated process of sampling, and the set of resulting intervals. The upper and lower interval bounds are themselves random variables that need to be taken into account, but by referencing a single interval from a single data sample, the authors misrepresent the confidence interval and invite a Bayesian interpretation.[16]

Sadly, there is a long tradition of scientists and academics in giving errant definitions and interpretations of the confidence interval.[17] Their error is not harmless because they invite the attribution of a high level of probability to the claim that the “true” population measure is within the reported confidence interval. The error encourages readers to believe that the confidence interval is not conditioned upon the single sample result, and it misleads readers into believing that not only random error, but systematic and data errors are accounted for in the posterior probability.[18] 

[1] “Confidence in Intervals and Diffidence in the Courts” (Mar. 4, 2012).

[2] David H. Kaye & George Sensabaugh, “Reference Guide on DNA Identification Evidence” 129, 165 n.76.

[3] David H. Kaye & David A. Freedman, “Reference Guide on Statistics” 211, 284-5 (Glossary).

[4] Id. at 247.

[5] Id. at 247 n.91 & 92 (citing DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 791 F. Supp. 1042, 1046 (D.N.J. 1992), aff’d, 6 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 1993); SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 247 F. Supp. 2d 1011, 1037 (N.D. Ill. 2003), aff’d on other grounds, 403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Prods. Liab. Litig, 318 F. Supp. 2d 879, 897 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (“a margin of error between 0.5 and 8.0 at the 95% confidence level . . . means that 95 times out of 100 a study of that type would yield a relative risk value somewhere between 0.5 and 8.0.”).

[6] See, e.g., Turpin v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 959 F.2d 1349, 1353–54 & n.1 (6th Cir. 1992) (erroneously describing a 95% CI of 0.8 to 3.10, to mean that “random repetition of the study should produce, 95 percent of the time, a relative risk somewhere between 0.8 and 3.10”); American Library Ass’n v. United States, 201 F.Supp. 2d 401, 439 & n.11 (E.D.Pa. 2002), rev’d on other grounds, 539 U.S. 194 (2003); Ortho–McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Kali Labs., Inc., 482 F.Supp. 2d 478, 495 (D.N.J.2007) (“Therefore, a 95 percent confidence interval means that if the inventors’ mice experiment was repeated 100 times, roughly 95 percent of results would fall within the 95 percent confidence interval ranges.”) (apparently relying party’s expert witness’s report), aff’d in part, vacated in part, sub nom. Ortho McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Teva Pharms Indus., Ltd., 344 Fed.Appx. 595 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms, USA, 2008 WL 2410420, *24 (S.D. Ind. 2008) (stating incorrectly that “95% percent of the time, the true mean value will be contained within the lower and upper limits of the confidence interval range”); Benavidez v. City of Irving, 638 F.Supp. 2d 709, 720 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (interpreting a 90% CI to mean that “there is a 90% chance that the range surrounding the point estimate contains the truly accurate value.”); Pritchard v. Dow Agro Sci., 705 F. Supp. 2d 471, 481, 488 (W.D. Pa. 2010) (excluding Dr. Bennet Omalu who assigned a 90% probability that an 80% confidence interval excluded relative risk of 1.0), aff’d, 430 F. App’x 102 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 508 (2011); Estate of George v. Vermont League of Cities and Towns, 993 A.2d 367, 378 n.12 (Vt. 2010) (erroneously describing a confidence interval to be a “range of values within which the results of a study sample would be likely to fall if the study were repeated numerous times”); Garcia v. Tyson Foods, 890 F. Supp. 2d 1273, 1285 (D. Kan. 2012) (quoting expert witness Robert G. Radwin, who testified that a 95% confidence interval in a study means “if I did this study over and over again, 95 out of a hundred times I would expect to get an average between that interval.”); In re Chantix (Varenicline) Prods. Liab. Litig., 889 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1290n.17 (N.D. Ala. 2012); In re Zoloft Products, 26 F. Supp. 3d 449, 454 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (“A 95% confidence interval means that there is a 95% chance that the ‘‘true’’ ratio value falls within the confidence interval range.”), aff’d, 858 F.3d 787 (3d Cir. 2017); Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 59 Cal. 4th 1, 36, 172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 371, 325 P.3d 916 (2014) (“Statisticians typically calculate margin of error using a 95 percent confidence interval, which is the interval of values above and below the estimate within which one can be 95 percent certain of capturing the ‘true’ result.”); In re Accutane Litig., 451 N.J. Super. 153, 165 A.3d 832, 842 (2017) (correctly quoting an incorrect definition from the third edition at p.580), rev’d on other grounds, 235 N.J. 229, 194 A.3d 503 (2018); In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Prods. Liab., No. 14 C 1748, MDL No. 2545, 2017 WL 1833173, *4 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2017) (“A confidence interval consists of a range of values. For a 95% confidence interval, one would expect future studies sampling the same population to produce values within the range 95% of the time.”); Maldonado v. Epsilon Plastics, Inc., 22 Cal. App. 5th 1308, 1330, 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 461 (2018) (“The 95 percent ‘confidence interval’, as used by statisticians, is the ‘interval of values above and below the estimate within which one can be 95 percent certain of capturing the “true” result’.”); Escheverria v. Johnson & Johnson, 37 Cal. App. 5th 292, 304, 249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 642 (2019) (quoting uncritically and with approval one of plaintiff’s expert witnesses, Jack Siemiatycki, who gave the jury an example of a study with a relative risk of 1.2, with a “95 percent probability that the true estimate is between 1.1 and 1.3.” According to the court, Siemiatycki went on to explain that this was “a pretty tight interval, and we call that a confidence interval. We call it a 95 percent confidence interval when we calculate it in such a way that it covers 95 percent of the underlying relative risks that are compatible with this estimate from this study.”); In re Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) & Cialis (Tadalafil) Prods. Liab. Litig., 424 F.Supp.3d 781, 787 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“For example, a given study could calculate a relative risk of 1.4 (a 40 percent increased risk of adverse events), but show a 95 percent “confidence interval” of .8 to 1.9. That confidence interval means there is 95 percent chance that the true value—the actual relative risk—is between .8 and 1.9.”); Rhyne v. United States Steel Corp., 74 F. Supp. 3d 733, 744 (W.D.N.C. 2020) (relying upon, and quoting, one of the more problematic definitions given in the third edition at p.580: “If a 95% confidence interval is specified, the range encompasses the results we would expect 95% of the time if samples for new studies were repeatedly drawn from the population.”); Wilant v. BNSF Ry., C.A. No. N17C-10-365 CEB, (Del. Super. Ct. May 13, 2020) (citing third edition at p.573, “a confidence interval provides ‘a range (interval) within which the risk likely would fall if the study were repeated numerous times’.”; “[s]o a 95% confidence interval indicates that the range of results achieved in the study would be achieved 95% of the time when the study is replicated from the same population.”); Germaine v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 18-800V, (U.S. Fed. Ct. Claims July 29, 2021) (giving an incorrect definition directly from the third edition, at p.621; “[a] “confidence interval” is “[a] range of values … within which the true value is likely to fall[.]”).

[7] Daniel Rubinfeld, “Reference Guide on Multiple Regression” 303, 352.

[8] Id. at 342.

[9] See Sander Greenland, Stephen J. Senn, Kenneth J. Rothman, John B. Carlin, Charles Poole, Steven N. Goodman, and Douglas G. Altman, “Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations,” 31 Eur. J. Epidemiol. 337, 343 (2016).

[10] Shari Seidman Diamond, “Reference Guide on Survey Research” 359, 381.

[11] Michael D. Green, D. Michal Freedman, and Leon Gordis, “Reference Guide on Epidemiology,” 549, 573.

[12] Id. at 580.

[13] Id. at 621.

[14] In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Prods. Liab. Litig., Declaration of Martin T. Wells, Ph.D., at 2-3 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 30, 2016). 

[15] Joseph Sanders, David Faigman, Peter Imrey, and A. Philip Dawid, “Differential Etiology: Inferring Specific Causation in the Law from Group Data in Science,” 63 Arizona L. Rev. 851, 898 n.173 (2021).

[16] The authors are well-credentialed lawyers and scientists. Peter Imrey, was trained in, and has taught, mathematical statistics, biostatistics, and epidemiology. He is a professor of medicine in the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. A. Philip Dawid is a distinguished statistician, an Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Cambridge University, Darwin College, and a Fellow of the Royal Society. David Faigman is the Chancellor & Dean, and the John F. Digardi Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law. Joseph Sanders is the A.A. White Professor, at the University of Houston Law Center. I have previously pointed this problem in these authors’ article. “Differential Etiologies – Part One – Ruling In” (June 19, 2022).

[17] See, e.g., Richard W. Clapp & David Ozonoff, “Environment and Health: Vital Intersection or Contested Territory?” 30 Am. J. L. & Med. 189, 210 (2004) (“Thus, a RR [relative risk] of 1.8 with a confidence interval of 1.3 to 2.9 could very likely represent a true RR of greater than 2.0, and as high as 2.9 in 95 out of 100 repeated trials.”); Erica Beecher-Monas, Evaluating Scientific Evidence: An Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process 60-61 n. 17 (2007) (quoting Clapp and Ozonoff with obvious approval); Déirdre Dwyer, The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence 154-55 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2008) (“By convention, scientists require a 95 per cent probability that a finding is not due to chance alone. The risk ratio (e.g. ‘2.2’) represents a mean figure. The actual risk has a 95 per cent probability of lying somewhere between upper and lower limits (e.g. 2.2 ±0.3, which equals a risk somewhere between 1.9 and 2.5) (the ‘confidence interval’).”); Frank C. Woodside, III & Allison G. Davis, “The Bradford Hill Criteria: The Forgotten Predicate,” 35 Thomas Jefferson L. Rev. 103, 110 (2013) (“A confidence interval provides both the relative risk found in the study and a range (interval) within which the risk would likely fall if the study were repeated numerous times.”); Christopher B. Mueller, “Daubert Asks the Right Questions:  Now Appellate Courts Should Help Find the Right Answers,” 33 Seton Hall L. Rev. 987, 997 (2003) (describing the 95% confidence interval as “the range of outcomes that would be expected to occur by chance no more than five percent of the time”); Arthur H. Bryant & Alexander A. Reinert, “The Legal System’s Use of Epidemiology,” 87 Judicature 12, 19 (2003) (“The confidence interval is intended to provide a range of values within which, at a specified level of certainty, the magnitude of association lies.”) (incorrectly citing the first edition of Rothman & Greenland, Modern Epidemiology 190 (Philadelphia 1998);  John M. Conley & David W. Peterson, “The Science of Gatekeeping: The Federal Judicial Center’s New Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,” 74 N.C.L.Rev. 1183, 1212 n.172 (1996) (“a 95% confidence interval … means that we can be 95% certain that the true population average lies within that range”).

[18] See Brock v. Merrill Dow Pharm., Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 311–12 (5th Cir. 1989) (incorrectly stating that the court need not resolve questions of bias and confounding because “the studies presented to us incorporate the possibility of these factors by the use of a confidence interval”). Bayesian credible intervals can similarly be misleading when the interval simply reflects sample results and sample variance, but not the myriad other ways the estimate may be wrong.

Posted in Evidence, Expert Witnesses, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, statistical evidence | No Comments »

Doctor Moline – Why Can’t You Be True?

December 18th, 2022

Doctor Moline, why can’t you be true?

Oh, Doc Moline, why can’t you be true?

You done started doing the things you used to do.

Mass torts are the product of the lawsuit industry, and since the 1960s, this industry has produced tort claims on a truly industrial scale. The industry now has an economic ally and adjunct in the litigation finance industry, and it has been boosted by the desuetude of laws against champerty and maintenance. The way that mass torts are adjudicated in some places could easily be interpreted as legalized theft.

One governor on the rapaciousness of the lawsuit industry has been the requirement that claims actually be proven in court. Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Daubert, the defense bar has been able, on notable occasions, to squelch some instances of false claiming. Just as equity often varies with the length of the Chancellor’s foot, gatekeeping of scientific opinion about causation often varies with the scientific acumen of the trial judge. From the decision in Daubert itself, gatekeeping has been under assault form the lawsuit industry and its allies. I have, in these pages, detailed the efforts of the now defunct Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP) to undermine any gatekeeping of scientific opinion testimony for scientific or statistical validity. SKAPP, as well as other organizations, and some academics, in aid of the lawsuit industry, have lobbied for the abandonment of the requirement of proving causation, or for the dilution of the scientific standards for expert opinions of causation.[1] The counter to this advocacy has been, and continues to be, an insistence that the traditional elements of a case, including general and specific causation, be sufficiently proven, with opinion testimony that satisfies the legal knowledge requirement for such testimony.

Alas, expert witness testimony can go awry in other ways besides merely failing to satisfy the validity and relevance requirements of the law of evidence.[2] One way I had not previously contemplated is suing for defamation or “product disparagement.”

We are now half a century since occupational exposures to various asbestos fibers came under general federal regulatory control, with regulatory requirements that employers warn their employees about the hazards involved with asbestos exposure. This federally enforced dissemination of information about asbestos hazards created a significant problem for the asbestos lawsuit industry.  Cases of mesothelioma have always occurred among persons non-occupationally exposed to asbestos, but as occupational exposure declined, the relative proportion of mesothelioma cases with no obvious occupational exposures increased. The lawsuit industry could not stand around and let these tragic cases go to waste.

Cosmetic talc variably has some mineral particulate that comes under the category of “elongate mineral particles,” (EMP), which the lawsuit industry could assert is “asbestos.” As a result, this industry has been able to reprise asbestos litigation into a new morality tale against cosmetic talc producers and sellers. LTL Management LLC was formerly known as Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. [J&J], a manufacturer and seller of cosmetic talc. J&J became a major target of the lawsuit industry in mesothelioma (and ovarian cancer) cases, based upon claims that EMP/asbestos in cosmetic talc caused their cancers. The lawsuit industry recruited its usual retinue of expert witnesses to support its litigation efforts.

Standing out in this retinue was Dr. Jacqueline Moline. On December 16, J&J did something that rarely happens in the world of mass torts; it sued Dr. Moline for fraud, injurious falsehood and product disparagement, and violations of the Lanham Act (§ 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)).[3] The gravamen of the complaint is that Dr. Moline, in 2020, published a case series of 33 persons who supposedly used cosmetic talc products and later developed malignant mesothelioma. According to her article, the 33 patients had no other exposures to asbestos, which she concluded, showed that cosmetic talc use can cause mesothelioma:

“Objective: To describe 33 cases of malignant mesothelioma among individuals with no known asbestos exposure other than cosmetic talcum powder.

Methods: Cases were referred for medico-legal evaluation, and tissue digestions were performed in some cases. Tissue digestion for the six ases described was done according to standard methodology.

Results: Asbestos of the type found in talcum powder was found in all six cases evaluated. Talcum powder usage was the only source of asbestos for all 33 cases.

Conclusions: Exposure to asbestos-contaminated talcum powders can cause mesothelioma. Clinicians should elicit a history of talcum powder usage in all patients presenting with mesothelioma.”[4]

Jacqueline Moline and Ronald Gordon both gave anemic conflicts disclosures: “Authors J.M. and R.G. have served as expert witnesses in asbestos litigation, including talc litigation for plaintiffs.”[5] Co-author Maya Alexandri was a lawyer at the time of publication; she is now a physician practicing emergency medicine, and also a fabulist. The article does not disclose the nature of Dr. Alexandri’s legal practice.

Dr. Moline is a professor and chair of occupational medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell. She received her medical degree from the University of Chicago-Pritzker School of Medicine and a Master of Science degree in community medicine from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. She completed a residency in internal medicine at Yale New Haven Hospital and an occupational and environmental medicine residency at Mount Sinai Medical Center. Dr. Moline is also a major-league testifier for the lawsuit industry.  Over the last quarter century, she has testified from sea to shining sea, for plaintiffs in asbestos, talc, and other litigations.[6]

According to J&J, Dr. Moline was listed as an expert witness for plaintiff, in over 200 talc mesothelioma cases against J&J.  There are, of course, other target defendants in this litigation, and the actual case count is likely higher. Moline has testified in 46 talc cases against J&J, and she has testified in 16 of those cases.[7] J&J estimates that she has made millions of dollars in service of the lawsuit industry.[8]

The authors’ own description of the manuscript makes clear the concern over the validity of personal and occupational histories of the 33 cases: “This manuscript is the first to describe mesothelioma among talcum powder consumers. Our case study suggest [sic] that cosmetic talcum powder use may help explain the high prevalence of idiopathic mesothelioma cases, particularly among women, and stresses the need for improved exposure history elicitation among physicians.”[9]

The Complaint alleges that Moline knew that her article, testimony, and public statements about the absence of occupational asbestos exposure in subjects of her case series, were false.  After having her testimony either excluded by trial courts, or held on appeal to be legally insufficient,[10] Moline set out to have a peer-reviewed publication that would support her claims. Because mesothelioma is sometimes considered, uncritically, as pathognomonic of amphibole asbestos exposure, Moline was obviously keen to establish the absence of occupational exposure in any of the 33 cases.

Alas, the truth appears to have caught up with Moline because some of the 33 cases were in litigation, in which the detailed histories of each case would be discovered. Defense counsel sought to connect the dots between the details of each of the 33 cases and the details of pending or past lawsuits. The federal district court decision in the case of Bell v. American International Industries blew open the doors of Moline’s alleged fraud.[11]  Betty Bell claimed that her use of cosmetic talc had caused her to develop mesothelioma. What Dr. Moline and Bell’s counsel were bound to have known was that Bell had had occupational exposure to asbestos. Before filing a civil action against talc product suppliers, Bell filed workers’ compensation against two textile industry employers.[12] Judge Osteen’s opinion in Bell documents the anxious zeal that plaintiffs’ counsel brought to bear in trying to suppress the true nature of Ms. Bell’s exposure. After Judge Osteen excoriated Moline and plaintiffs’ counsel for their efforts to conceal information about Bell’s occupational asbestos exposures, and about her inclusion in the 33 case series, plaintiffs’ counsel dismissed her case.

Another of the 33 cases was the New Jersey case brought by Stephen Lanzo, for whom Moline testified as an expert witness.[13] In the course of the Lanzo case, the defense developed facts of Mr. Lanzo’s prior asbestos exposure.  Crocidolite fibers were found in his body, even though the amphibole crocidolite is not a fiber type found in talc. Crocidolite is orders of magnitude more potent in causing human mesotheliomas than other asbestos fiber types.[14] Despite these facts, Dr. Moline appears to have included Lanzo as one of the 33 cases in her article.

And then there were others, too.

[1] See “Skappology” (May 26, 2020);  “SKAPP A LOT” (April 30, 2010); “Manufacturing Certainty” (Oct. 25, 2011); “David Michaels’ Public Relations Problem” (Dec. 2, 2011); “Conflicted Public Interest Groups” (Nov. 3, 2013).

[2] See, e.g., “Legal Remedies for Suspect Medical Science in Products Cases – Part One” (June 2, 2020); “Part Two” (June 3, 2020); “Part Three” (June 5, 2020); “Part 4” (June 7, 2020); “Part 5” (June 8, 2020).

[3] LTL Management LLC v. Dr. Jacqueline Miriam Moline,

Adv. Proc. No. 22- ____, in Chap. 11, Case No. 21-30589, Bankruptcy Ct., D.N.J. (Dec. 16, 2022) [Complaint]

[4] Jacqueline Moline, Kristin Bevilacqua, Maya Alexandri, and Ronald E. Gordon, “Mesothelioma Associated with the Use of Cosmetic Talc,” 62 J. Occup. & Envt’l Med. 11 (Jan. 2020) (emphasis added) [cited as Moline]

[5] Dr. Gordon has had other litigation activities of interest. See William C. Rempel, “Alleged Mob Case May Best Illustrate How Not to Play the Game : Crime: Scheme started in a Texas jail and ended with reputed mobsters charged in $30-million laundering scam,” L.A. Times (July 4, 1993).

[6] See., e.g., Fowler v. Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc., 251 N.J. 300, 276 A. 3d 1146 (2022); Lanzo v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co., 467 N.J. Super. 476, 254 A.3d 691 (App. Div. 2021); Fishbain v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., No. A-1786-15T2 (N.J. App. Div. 2019); Buttitta v. Allied Signal, Inc., N.J. App. Div. (2017); Kaenzig v. Charles B. Chrystal Co., N.J. App. Div. (2015); Anderson v. A.J. Friedman Supply Co., 416 N.J. Super. 46, 3 A.3d 545 (App. Div. 2010); Cioni v. Avon Prods., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 33197(U) (2022); Zicklin v. Bergdorf Goodman Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 32119(U) (N.Y.Sup. N.Y. Cty. 2022); Nemeth v. Brenntag North America, 183 A.D.3d 211, 123 N.Y.S.3d 12 (2020), rev’d, 38 N.Y.3d 336, 345 (2022) (Moline’s testimony insufficient); Olson v. Brenntag North America, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 33741(U) (N.Y.Sup. N.Y. Cty. 2020), rev’d, 207 A.D.3d 415, 416 (N.Y. 1st Dep’t 2022) (holding Moline’s testimony on causation insufficient).; Moldow v. A.I. Friedman, L.P., 2019 NY Slip Op 32060(U) (N.Y.Sup. N.Y. Cty. 2019); Zoas v BASF Catalysts, LLC., 2018 NY Slip Op 33009(U) (N.Y.Sup. N.Y. Cty. 2018); Prokocimer v. Avon Prods., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 33170(U) (Dec. 11, 2018); Shulman v. Brenntag North America, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 32943(U) (N.Y.Sup. N.Y. Cty. 2018); Pistone v. American Biltrite, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 30851(U) (2018); Evans v. 3M Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 30756(U) (N.Y.Sup. N.Y. Cty. 2017); Juni v. A.O. Smith Water Prods., 48 Misc.3d 460, 11 N.Y.S.3d 416 (2015), aff’d, 32 N.Y.3d 1116, 116 N.E.3d 75, 91 N.Y.S.3d 784 (2018); Konstantin v. 630 Third Ave. Associates, 121 A.D. 3d 230, 990 N.Y.S. 2d 174 (2014); Lopez v. Gem Gravure Co., 50 A.D.3d 1102, 858 N.Y.S.2d 226 (2008); Lopez v. Superflex, Ltd., 31 A.D. 3d 914, 819 N.Y.S. 2d 165 (2006); DeMeyer v. Advantage Auto, 9 Misc. 3d 306, 797 N.Y.S.2d 743 (2005); Amorgianos v. National RR Passenger Corp., 137 F. Supp. 2d 147 (E.D.N.Y. 2001), aff’d, 303 F. 3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002); Chapp v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 2019 Wisc. App. 54, 935 N.W.2d 553 (2019); McNeal v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., 80 Cal. App. 853 (2022); Burnett v. American Internat’l Indus., Case No. 3:20-CV-3046 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 27, 2022); McAllister v. McDermott, Inc., Civ. Action No. 18-361-SDD-RLB (M.D.La. Aug. 14, 2020); Hanson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 353 F. Supp. 3d 1273 (S.D. Ga. 2018); Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 135 F. 3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1998); Carroll v. Akebono Brake Corp., 514 P. 3d 720 (Wash. App. 2022).

[7] Complaint ¶15.

[8] Complaint ¶19.

[9] Moline at 11.

[10] See, e.g., In re New York City Asbestos Litig. (Juni), 148 A.D.3d 233, 236-37, 239 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2017), aff’d, 2 N.Y.3d 1116, 1122 (2018); Nemeth v. Brenntag North America, 183 A.D.3d 211, 123 N.Y.S.3d 12 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020), rev’d, 38 N.Y.3d 336, 345 (2022); Olson v. Brenntag North America, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 33741(U) (N.Y.Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2020), rev’d, 207 A.D.3d 415, 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2022).

[11] Bell v. American Internat’l Indus. et al., No. 1:17-CV-00111, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199180 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 13, 2022) (William Lindsay Osteen, Jr., J.). See Daniel Fisher, “Key talc/cancer study cited by plaintiffs hid evidence of other exposure, lawyers say” (Dec. 1, 2022).

[12] According to the Complaint against Moline, Bell had filed workers’ compensation claims with the North Carolina Industrial Commission, back in 2015, declaring under oath that she had been exposed to asbestos while working with two textile manufacturing employers, Hoechst Celanese Corporation and Pillowtex Corporation. Complaint at ¶102. As frequently happens in civil actions, the claimant dismisses worker’s compensation without prejudice, to pursue the more lucrative payday in a civil action, without the burden of employers’ liens against the recovery. Complaint at 102.

[13] See “New Jersey Appellate Division Calls for Do-Over in Baby Powder Dust Up” (May 22, 2021).

[14] David H. Garabrant & Susan T. Pastula, “A comparison of asbestos fiber potency and elongate mineral particle (EMP) potency for mesothelioma in humans,” 361 Toxicology & Applied Pharmacol. 127 (2018) (“relative potency of chrysotile:amosite:crocidolite was 1:83:376”). See also D. Wayne Berman & Kenny S. Crump, “Update of Potency Factors for Asbestos-Related Lung Cancer and Mesothelioma,” 38(S1) Critical Reviews in Toxicology 1 (2008).

Posted in Expert Witness Discovery, Expert Witnesses, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence, Scientific Misconduct, Underlying Data | 32 Comments »

Further Thoughts on Cheng’s Consensus Rule

October 3rd, 2022

In “Cheng’s Proposed Consensus Rule for Expert Witnesses,”[1] I discussed a recent law review article by Professor Edward K. Cheng,[2] who has proposed dispensing with expert witness testimony as we know it in favor of having witnesses tell juries what the scientific consensus is on any subject. Cheng’s project is fraught with difficulties and contradictions; and it has clearly anticipatable bad outcomes. Four Supreme Court cases (Daubert, Joiner, Kumho Tire, and Weisgram), and a major revision in Rule 702, ratified by Congress, all embraced the importance of judicial gatekeeping of expert witness opinion testimony to the fact-finding function of trials. Professor Cheng now wants to ditch the entire notion of gatekeeping, as well as the epistemic basis – sufficient facts and data – for expert witnesses’ opinions in favor of reportage of which way the herd is going. Cheng’s proposal is perhaps the most radical attack, in recent times, on the nature of legal factfinding, whether by judges or juries, in the common law world.

Still, there are two claims within his proposal, which although overstated, are worth further discussion and debate. The first is that the gatekeeping role does not sit well with many judges. We see judges ill at ease in their many avoidance tactics, by which they treat serious methodological challenges to expert witness testimony as “merely going to the weight of the conclusion.” The second is that many judges, and especially juries, are completely at sea in the technical knowledge needed to evaluate the scientific issues in many modern day trials.

With respect to the claimed epistemic incompetence, the simpler remedy is to get rid of incompetent judges. We have commercial courts, vaccine courts, and patent courts. Why are litigants disputing a contract or a commercial practice entitled to epistemically competent judges, but litigants in health claim cases are not? Surely, the time has come to have courts with judges that have background and training in the health and statistical sciences. The time for “blue ribbon” juries of properly trained fact finders seems overdue. Somehow we must reconcile the seventh amendment right to a jury with the requirement of “due process” of law. The commitment to jury trials for causes of action known to the common law in 1787, or 1791, is stretched beyond belief for the sorts of technical and complex claims now seen in federal courts and state courts of general jurisdiction.[3]

Several courts have challenged the belief that the seventh amendment right to a jury applies in the face of complex litigation. The United States Court of Appeals explained its understanding of complexity that should remove a case from the province of the seventh amendment:

“A suit is too complex for a jury when circumstances render the jury unable to decide in a proper manner. The law presumes that a jury will find facts and reach a verdict by rational means. It does not contemplate scientific precision but does contemplate a resolution of each issue on the basis of a fair and reasonable assessment of the evidence and a fair and reasonable application of the relevant legal rules. See Schulz v. Pennsylvania RR, 350 U.S. 523, 526 (1956). A suit might be excessively complex as a result of any set of circumstances which singly or in combination render a jury unable to decide in the foregoing rational manner. Examples of such circumstances are an exceptionally long trial period and conceptually difficult factual issues.”[4]

The Circuit’s description of complexity certainly seems to apply to many contemporary claims of health effects.

We should recognize that Professor Cheng’s indictment, and conviction, of judicial gatekeeping and jury decision making as epistemically incompetent directly implies that the judicial process has no epistemic, truth finding function in technical cases of claimed health effects. Cheng’s proposed solution does not substantially ameliorate this implication, because consensus statements are frequently absent, and even when present, are plagued with their own epistemic weaknesses.

Consider for instance, the 1997 pronouncement of the International Agency for Research on Cancer that crystalline silica is a “known” human carcinogen.[5] One of the members of the working group responsible for the pronouncement explained:

“It is hardly surprising that the Working Group had considerable difficulty in reaching a decision, did not do so unanimously and would probably not have done so at all, had it not been explained that we should be concerned with hazard identification, not risk.”[6]

And yet, within months of the IARC pronouncement, state and federal regulatory agencies formed a chorus of assent to the lung cancer “risk” of crystalline silica. Nothing in the scientific record had changed except the permission of the IARC to stop thinking critically about the causation issue. Another consensus group came out, a few years after the IARC pronouncement, with a devastating critical assessment of the IARC review:

“The present authors believe that the results of these studies [cited by IARC] are inconsistent and, when positive, only weakly positive. Other, methodologically strong, negative studies have not been considered, and several studies viewed as providing evidence supporting the carcinogenicity of silica have significant methodological weaknesses. Silica is not directly genotoxic and is a pulmonary carcinogen only in the rat, a species that seems to be inappropriate for assessing particulate carcinogenesis in humans. Data on humans demonstrate a lack of association between lung cancer and exposure to crystalline silica. Exposure-response relationships have generally not been found. Studies in which silicotic patients were not identified from compensation registries and in which enumeration was complete did not support a causal association between silicosis and lung cancer, which further argues against the carcinogenicity of crystalline silica.”[7]

Cheng’s proposal would seem to suppress legitimate courtroom criticism of an apparent consensus statement, which was based upon a narrow majority of a working group, on a controversial dataset, with no examination of the facts and data upon which the putative consensus statement was itself based.

The Avandia litigation tells a cautionary tale of how fragile and ephemeral consensuses can be. A dubious meta-analysis by a well-known author received lead article billing in an issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, in 2007, and litigation claims started to roll in within hours.[8] In face of this meta-analysis, an FDA advisory committee recommended heightened warnings, and a trial court declined to take a careful look at the methodological flaws in the inciting meta-analytic study.[9] Ultimately, a large clinical trial exculpated the medication, but by then the harm had been done, and there was no revisiting of the gatekeeping decision to allow the claims to proceed.[10] The point should be obvious. In 2007, there appeared to be a consensus, with led to an FDA label change, despite the absence of sufficient facts and data to support the litigation claims. Even if plaintiffs’ claims passed through the gate in 2008, they were highly vulnerable to courtroom challenges to the original meta-analysis. Cheng’s proposal, however, would truncate the litigation process into an exploration whether or not there was a “consensus.”

Deviation from Experts’ Standards of Care

The crux of many Rule 702 challenges to an expert witness is that the witness has committed malpractice in his discipline. The challenger must identify a standard of care, and the challenged witness’s deviation(s) from that standard. The identification of the relevant standard of care will, indeed, sometimes involve a consensus, evidenced by texts, articles, professional society statements, or simply implicit in relevant works of scholarship or scientific studies. Consensuses about standards of care are, of course, about methodology. Consensuses about conclusions, however, may also be relevant because if a litigant’s expert witness proffers a conclusion at odds with consensus conclusions, the deviant conclusion implies deviant methodology.

Cheng’s treatment of statistical significance is instructive for how his proposal would create mischief in many different types of adjudications, but especially of claimed health effects. First, Cheng’s misrepresentation of consensus among statisticians is telling for the validity of his project.  After all, he holds an advanced degree in statistics, and yet, he is willing write that that:

“[w]hile historically used as a rule of thumb, statisticians have now concluded that using the 0.05 [p-value] threshold is more distortive than helpful.”[11]

Statisticians, without qualification! And as was shown, Cheng is demonstrably wrong in his use of the cited source to support his representation of what certainly seems like a consensus paper. His précis is not even remotely close to the language of the paper, but the consensus paper is hearsay and can only be used by an expert witness in support of an opinion.  Presumably, another expert witness might contradict the quoted opinion about what “statisticians” have concluded, but it is unclear whether a court could review the underlying A.S.A. paper, take judicial notice of the incorrectness of the proffered opinion, and then exclude the expert witness opinion.

After the 2016 publication of the A.S.A.’s consensus statement, some statisticians did indeed publish editorials claiming it was time to move beyond statistical significance testing. At least one editorial, by an A.S.A. officer was cited as representing an A.S.A. position, which led the A.S.A. President to appoint a task force to consider the call for an across-the-board rejection of significance testing. In 2021, that task force clearly endorsed significance testing as having a continued role in statistical practice.[12]

Where would this situation leave a gatekeeping court or a factfinding jury? Some obscure psychology journals have abandoned the use of significance testing, but the New England Journal of Medicine has retained the practice, while introducing stronger controls for claims of “significance” when the study at hands has engaged in multiple comparisons.

But Cheng, qua law professor and statistician (and would-be expert witness) claims “statisticians have now concluded that using the 0.05 [p-value] threshold is more distortive than helpful,” and the trial must chase not the validity of the inference of claimed causation but whether there is, or is not, a census about the use of a pre-specified threshold for p-values or confidence intervals. Cheng’s proposal about consensuses would turn trials into disputes about whether consensuses exist, and the scope of the purported agreement, not about truth.

In some instances, there might be a clear consensus, fully supported, on a general causation issue. Consider for instance, the known causal relationship between industrial benzene exposure and acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). This consensus turns out to be rather unhelpful when considering whether minute contamination of carbonated water can cause cancer,[13] or even whether occupational exposure to gasoline, with its low-level benzene (~1%) content, can cause AML.[14]

Frequently, there is also a deep asymmetry in consensus statements. When the evidence for a causal conclusion is very clear, professional societies may weigh in to express their confident conclusions about the existence of causation. Such societies typically do not issue statements that explicitly reject causal claims. The absence of a consensus statement, however, often can be taken to represent a consensus that professional societies do not endorse causal claims, and consider the evidence, at best, equivocal. Those dogs that have not barked can be, and have been, important considerations in gatekeeping.

Contrary to Cheng’s complete dismissal of judges’ epistemic competence, judges can, in many instances, render reasonable gatekeeping decisions by closely considering the absence of consensus statements, or systematic reviews, favoring the litigation claims.[15] At least in this respect, Professor Cheng is right to emphasize the importance of consensus, but he fails to note the importance of its absence, and the ability of litigants and their expert witnesses to inform gatekeeping judges of the relevance of consensus statements or their absence to the epistemic assessment of proferred expert witness opinion testimony.

[1] “Cheng’s Proposed Consensus Rule for Expert Witnesses,” (Sept. 15, 2022).

[2] Edward K. Cheng, “The Consensus Rule: A New Approach to Scientific Evidence,” 75 Vanderbilt L. Rev. 407 (2022) [Consensus Rule]

[3] There is an extensive discussion and debate of viability and the validity of asserting rights to trial by jury for many complex civil actions in the modern era. See, e.g., Stephan Landsman & James F. Holderman, “The Evolution of the Jury Trial in America,” 37 Litigation 32 (2010); Robert A. Clifford, “Deselecting the Jury in a Civil Case,” 30 Litigation 8 (Winter 2004); Hugh H. Bownes, “Should Trial by Jury Be Eliminated in Complex Cases,” 1 Risk 75 (1990); Douglas King, “Complex Civil Litigation and the Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial,” 51 Univ. Chi. L. Rev. 581 (1984); Alvin B. Rubin, “Trial by Jury in Complex Civil Cases: Voice of Liberty or Verdict by Confusion?” 462 Ann. Am. Acad. Political & Social Sci. 87 (1982); William V. Luneburg & Mark A. Nordenberg, “Specially Qualified Juries and Expert Nonjury Tribunals: Alternatives for Coping with the Complexities of Modern Civil Litigation,” 67 Virginia L. Rev. 887 (1981); Richard O. Lempert, “Civil Juries and Complex Cases: Let’s Not Rush to Judgment,” 80 Mich. L. Rev. 68 (1981); Comment, “The Case for Special Juries in Complex Civil Litigation,” 89 Yale L. J. 1155 (1980); James S. Campbell & Nicholas Le Poidevin, “Complex Cases and Jury Trials: A Reply to Professor Arnold,” 128 Univ. Penn. L. Rev. 965 (1980); Barry E. Ungar & Theodore R. Mann, “The Jury and the Complex Civil Case,” 6 Litigation 3 (Spring 1980); Morris S. Arnold, “A Historical Inquiry into the Right to Trial by Jury in Complex Civil Litigation,”128 Univ. Penn. L. Rev. 829 (1980); Daniel H. Margolis & Evan M. Slavitt, “The Case Against Trial by Jury in Complex Civil Litigation,” 7 Litigation 19 (1980); Montgomery Kersten, “Preserving the Right to Jury Trial in Complex Civil Cases,” 32 Stanford L. Rev. 99 (1979); Maralynne Flehner, “Jury Trials in Complex Litigation,” 4 St. John’s Law Rev. 751 (1979); Comment, “The Right to a Jury Trial in Complex Civil Litigation,” 92 Harvard L. Rev. 898 (1979); Kathy E. Davidson, “The Right to Trial by Jury in Complex Litigation,” 20 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 329 (1978); David L. Shapiro & Daniel R. Coquillette, “The Fetish of Jury Trial in Civil Cases: A Comment on Rachal v. Hill,” 85 Harvard L. Rev. 442 (1971); Comment, “English Judge May Not Order Jury Trial in Civil Case in Absence of Special Circumstances. Sims v. William Howard & Son Ltd. (C. A. 1964),” 78 Harv. L. Rev. 676 (1965); Fleming James, Jr., “Right to a Jury Trial in Civil Actions,” 72 Yale L. J. 655 (1963).

[4] In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig., 63` F.2d 1069, 1079 (3d Cir 1980). See In re Boise Cascade Sec. Litig., 420 F. Supp. 99, 103 (W.D. Wash. 1976) (“In sum, it appears to this Court that the scope of the problems presented by this case is immense. The factual issues, the complexity of the evidence that will be required to explore those issues, and the time required to do so leads to the conclusion that a jury would not be a rational and capable fact finder.”). See also Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 532, 538 & n.10, 90 S. Ct. 733 (1970) (discussing the “legal” versus equitable nature of an action that might give rise to a right to trial by jury). Of course, the statistical and scientific complexity of claims was absent from cases tried in common law courts in 1791, at the time of the adoption of the seventh amendment.

[5] IARC Monograph on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans of Silica, Some Silicates, Coal Dust and para-Aramid Fibrils, vol. 68 (1997).

[6] Corbett McDonald & Nicola Cherry, “Crystalline Silica and Lung Cancer: The Problem of Conflicting Evidence,” 8 Indoor Built Env’t 121, 121 (1999).

[7] Patrick A. Hessel, John F. Gamble, J. Bernard L. Gee, Graham Gibbs, Francis H.Y. Green, W. Keith C. Morgan, and Brooke T. Mossman, “Silica, Silicosis, and Lung Cancer: A Response to a Recent Working Group Report,” 42 J. Occup & Envt’l Med. 704, 704 (2000).

[8] Steven Nissen & K. Wolski, “Effect of Rosiglitazone on the Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Death from Cardiovascular Causes,” 356 New Engl. J. Med. 2457 (2007); Erratum, 357 New Engl. J. Med. 100 (2007).

[9] In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 2011 WL 13576 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 4, 2011).

[10] Philip D. Home, Stuart J Pocock, et al., “Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiovascular Outcomes in Oral Agent Combination Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes (RECORD),” 373 Lancet 2125 (2009). The hazard ratios for cardiovascular death was 0.84 (95% C.I., 0·59–1·18), and for myocardial infarction, 1·14 (95% C.I., 0·80–1·63).

[11] Consenus Rule at 424 (emphasis added) (citing Ronald L. Wasserstein & Nicole A. Lazar, “The ASA Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose,” 70 Am. Statistician 129, 131 (2016)).

[12] Yoav Benjamini, Richard D. DeVeaux, Bradly Efron, Scott Evans, Mark Glickman, Barry Braubard, Xuming He, Xiao Li Meng, Nancy Reid, Stephen M. Stigler, Stephen B. Vardeman, Christopher K. Wikle, Tommy Wright, Linda J. Young, and Karen Kafadar, “The ASA President’s Task Force Statement on Statistical Significance and Replicability,” 15 Annals of Applied Statistics 1084 (2021); see also “A Proclamation from the Task Force on Statistical Significance” (June 21, 2021).

[13] Sutera v. Perrier Group of America, Inc., 986 F. Supp. 655, 664-65 (D. Mass. 1997).

[14] Burst v. Shell Oil Co., 2015 WL 3755953, at *9 (E.D. La. June 16, 2015), aff’d, 650 F. App’x 170 (5th Cir. 2016). cert. denied. 137 S. Ct. 312 (2016); Henricksen v. ConocoPhillips Co., 605 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1156 (E.D. Wa. 2009).

[15] In re Mirena Ius Levonorgestrel-Related Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. II), 341 F. Supp. 3d 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), aff’d, 982 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2020); In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prods. Liab. Litig., 227 F. Supp. 3d 452 (D.S.C. 2017), aff’d, 892 F.3d 624 (4th Cir. 2018); In re: Zoloft (Sertraline Hydrocloride) Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 12-MD-2342, 2015 WL 7776911, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2015), aff’d, 858 F.3d 787 (3d Cir. 2017); In re Incretin-Based Therapies Prods. Liab. Litig., 524 F. Supp. 3d. 1007 (S.D. Cal. 2021); In re Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) & Cialis (Tadalafil) Prod. Liab. Litig., 424 F. Supp. 3d 781, 798–99 (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Posted in Expert Witnesses, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence | 1 Comment »

Cheng’s Proposed Consensus Rule for Expert Witnesses

September 15th, 2022

Edward K. Cheng is the Hess Professor of Law in absentia from Vanderbilt Law School, while serving this fall as a visiting professor at Harvard. Professor Cheng is one of the authors of the multi-volume treatise, Modern Scientific Evidence, and the author of many articles on scientific and statistical evidence. Cheng’s most recent article, “The Consensus Rule: A New Approach to Scientific Evidence,”[1] while thought provoking, follows in the long-standing tradition of law school professors to advocate evidence law reforms, based upon theoretical considerations devoid of practical or real-world support.

Cheng’s argument for a radical restructuring of Rule 702 is based upon his judgment that jurors and judges are epistemically incompetent to evaluate expert witness opinion testimony. The current legal approach has trial judges acting as gatekeepers of expert witness testimony, and jurors acting as judges of factual scientific claims. Cheng would abolish these roles as beyond their ken.[2] Lay persons can, however, determine which party’s position is supported by the relevant expert community, which he presumes (without evidence) possesses the needed epistemic competence. Accordingly, Cheng would rewrite the legal system’s approach to important legal disputes, such as disputes over causal claims, from:

Whether a given substance causes a given disease

to

Whether the expert community believes that a given substance causes a given disease.

Cheng channels the philosophical understanding of the ancients who realized that one must have expertise to judge whether someone else has used that expertise correctly. And he channels the contemporary understanding that knowledge is a social endeavor, not the unique perspective of an individual in isolation. From these twin premisses, Cheng derives a radical and cynical proposal to reform the law of expert witness testimony. In his vision, experts would come to court not to give their own opinions, and certainly not to try to explain how they arrive at their opinions from the available evidence. For him, the current procedure is too much like playing chess with a monkey. The expert function would consist of telling the jury what the expert witness’s community believes.[3] Jurors would not decide the “actual substantive questions,” but simply decide what they believe the relevant expert witness community accepts as a consensus. This radical restructuring is what Cheng calls the “consensus rule.”

In this proposed “consensus rule,” there is no room for gatekeeping. Parties continue to call expert witnesses, but only as conduits for the “consensus” opinions of their fields. Indeed, Cheng’s proposal would radically limit expert witness to service as pollsters; their testimony would present only their views of what the consensus is in their fields. This polling information is the only evidence that the jury hear from expert witnesses, because this is the only evidence that Cheng believes the jury is epistemically competent to assess.[4]

Under Cheng’s Consensus Rule, when there is no consensus in the realm, the expert witness regime defaults to “anything goes,” without gatekeeping.[5] Judges would continue to exercise some control over who is qualified to testify, but only as far as the proposed experts must be in a position to know what the consensus is in their fields.

Cheng does not explain why, under his proposed “consensus rule,” subject matter experts are needed at all.  The parties might call librarians, or sociologists of science, to talk about the relevant evidence of consensus. If a party cannot afford a librarian expert witness, then perhaps lawyers could present directly the results of their PubMed, and other internet searches.

Cheng may be right that his “deferential approach” would eliminate having the inexpert passing judgment on the expert. The “consensus rule” would reduce science to polling, conducted informally, often without documentation or recording, by partisan expert witnesses. This proposal hardly better reflects, as he argues, the “true” nature of science. In Cheng’s vision, science in the courtroom is just a communal opinion, without evidence and without inference. To be sure, this alternative universe is tidier and less disputatious, but it is hardly science or knowledge. We are left with opinions about opinions, without data, without internal or external validity, and without good and sufficient facts and data.

Cheng claims that his proposed Consensus Rule is epistemically superior to Rule 702 gatekeeping. For the intellectual curious and able, his proposal is a counsel of despair. Deference to the herd, he tells us “is not merely optimal—it is the only practical strategy.”[6] In perhaps the most extreme overstatement of his thesis, Cheng tells us that

“deference is arguably not due to any individual at all! Individual experts can be incompetent, biased, error prone, or fickle—their personal judgments are not and have never been the source of reliability. Rather, proper deference is to the community of experts, all of the people who have spent their careers and considerable talents accumulating knowledge in their field.”[7]

Cheng’s hypothesized community of experts, however is worthy of deference only by virtue of the soundness of its judgments. If a community has not severely tested its opinions, then its existence as a community is irrelevant. Cheng’s deference is the sort of phenomenon that helped create Lysenkoism and other intellectual fads that were beyond challenge with actual data.

There is, I fear, some partial truth to Cheng’s judgment of juries and judges as epistemically incompetent, or challenged, to judge science, but his judgment seems greatly overstated. Finding aberrant jury verdicts would be easy, but Cheng provides no meaningful examples of gatekeeping gone wrong. Professor Cheng may have over-generalized in stating that judges are epistemically incompetent to make substantive expert determinations. He surely cannot be suggesting that judges never have sufficient scientific acumen to determine the relevance and reliability of expert witness opinion. If judges can, in some cases, make a reasonable go at gatekeeping, why then is Cheng advocating a general rule that strips all judges of all gatekeeping responsibility with respect to expert witnesses?

Clearly judges lack the technical resources, time, and background training to delve deeply into the methodological issues with which they may be confronted. This situation could be ameliorated by budgeting science advisors and independent expert witnesses, and by creating specialty courts staffed with judges that have scientific training. Cheng acknowledges this response, but he suggests that conflicts with “norms about generalist judges.”[8] This retreat to norms is curious in the face of Cheng’s radical proposals, and the prevalence of using specialist judges for adjudicating commercial and patent disputes.

Although Cheng is correct that assessing validity and reliability of scientific inferences and conclusions often cannot be reduced to a cookbook or checklist approach, not all expertise is as opaque as Cheng suggests. In his view, lawyers are deluded into thinking that they can understand the relevant science, with law professors being even worse offenders.[9] Cross-examining a technical expert witness can be difficult and challenging, but lawyers on both sides of the aisle occasionally demolish the most skilled and knowledgeable expert witnesses, on substantive grounds. And these demolitions happen to expert witnesses who typically, self-servingly claim that they have robust consensuses agreeing with their opinions.

While scolding us that we must get “comfortable with relying on the expertise and authority of others,” Cheng reassures us that deferring to authority is “not laziness or an abdication of our intellectual responsibility.”[10] According to Cheng, the only reason to defer to the opinion of expert is that they are telling us what their community would say.[11] Good reasons, sound evidence, and valid inference need not worry us in Cheng’s world.

Finding Consensus

Cheng tells us that his Consensus Rule would look something like:

“Rule 702A. If the relevant scientific community believes a fact involving specialized knowledge, then that fact is established accordingly.”

Imagine the endless litigation over what the “relevant” community is. For a health effect claim about a drug and heart attacks, is it the community of cardiologists or epidemiologists? Do we accept the pronouncements of the American Heart Association or those of the American College of Cardiology. If there is a clear consensus based upon a clinical trial, which appears to be based upon suspect data, is discovery of underlying data beyond the reach of litigants because the correctness of the allegedly dispositive study is simply not in issue? Would courts have to take judicial notice of the clear consensus and shut down any attempt to get to the truth of the matter?

Cheng acknowledges that cases will involve issues that are controversial or undeveloped, without expert community consensus. Many litigations start after publication of a single study or meta-analysis, which is hardly the basis for any consensus. Cheng appears content, in this expansive area, to revert to anything goes because if the expert community has not coalesced around a unified view, or if the community is divided, then the courts cannot do better than flipping a coin! Cheng’s proposal thus has a loophole the size of the Sun.

Cheng tells us, unhelpfully, that “[d]etermining consensus is difficult in some cases, and less so in others.”[12] Determining consensus may not be straightforward, but no matter. Consensus Rule questions are not epistemically challenging and thus “far more manageable,” because they requires no special expertise. (Again, why even call a subject matter expert witness, as opposed to a science journalist or librarian?) Cheng further advises that consensus is “a bit like the reasonable person standard in negligence,” but this simply conflates normative judgments with the scientific judgments.[13]

Cheng’s Consensus Rule would allow the use of a systematic review or a meta-analysis, not for evidence of the correctness of its conclusions, but only as evidence of a consensus.[14] The thought experiment of how this suggestion plays out in the real world may cause some agita. The litigation over Avandia began within days of the publication of a meta-analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine.[15] So some evidence of consensus; right? But then the letters to the editor within a few weeks of publication showed that the meta-analysis was fatally flawed. Inadmissible! Under the Consensus Rule the correctness or the methodological appropriateness of the meta-analysis is irrelevant. A few months later, another meta-analysis is published, which fails to find the risk that the original meta-analysis claimed. Is the trial now about which meta-analysis represents the community’s consensus, or are we thrown into the game of anything goes, where expert witnesses just say things, without judicial supervision?  A few years go by, and now there is a large clinical trial that supersedes all the meta-analyses of small trials.[16] Is a single large clinical trial now admissible as evidence of a new consensus, or are only systematic reviews and meta-analyses relevant evidence?

Cheng’s Consensus Rule will be useless in most determinations of specific causation.  It will be a very rare case indeed when a scientific organization issues a consensus statement about plaintiff John Doe. Very few tort cases involve putative causal agents that are thought to cause every instance of some disease in every person exposed to the agent. Even when a scientific community has addressed general causation, it will have rarely resolved all the uncertainty about the causal efficacy of all levels of exposure or the appropriate window of latency. So Cheng’s proposal guarantees to remove specific causation from the control of Rule 702 gatekeeping.

The potential for misrepresenting consensus is even greater than the misrepresentations of actual study results. At least the data are the data, but what will jurors do when they are regaled by testimony about the informal consensus reached in the hotel lobby of the latest scientific conference. Regulatory pronouncements that are based upon precautionary principles will be misrepresented as scientific consensus.  Findings by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that a substance is a IIA “probable human carcinogen” will be hawked as a consensus, even though the classification specifically disclaims any quantitative meaning for “probable,” and it directly equates to “insufficient” evidence of carcinogencity in humans.

In some cases, as Cheng notes, organizations such as the National Research Council, or the National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM), will have weighed in on a controversy that has found its way into court.[17] Any help from such organizations will likely be illusory. Consider the 2006 publication of a comprehensive review of the available studies on non-pulmonary cancers and asbestos exposure by NASEM. The writing group presented its assessment of colorectal cancer as not causally associated with occupational asbestos exposure.[18] By 2007, the following year, expert witnesses for plaintiffs argued that the NASEM publication was no longer a consensus because one or two (truly inconsequential studies) had been published after the report and thus not considered. Under Cheng’s proposal, this dodge would appear to be enough to oust the consensus rule, and default to the “anything goes” rule. The scientific record can change rapidly, and many true consensus statements quickly find their way into the dustbin of scientific history.

Cheng greatly underestimates the difficulty in ascertaining “consensus.” Sometimes, to be sure, professional societies issue consensus statements, but they are often tentative and inconclusive. In many areas of science, there will be overlapping realms of expertise, with different disciplines issuing inconsistent “consensus” statements. Even within a single expert community, there may be two schools of thoughts about a particular issue.

There are instances, perhaps more than a few, when a consensus is epistemically flawed. If, as is the case in many health effect claims, plaintiffs rely upon the so-called linear no-threshold dose-response (LNT) theory of carcinogenesis, plaintiffs will point to regulatory pronouncements that embrace LNT as “the consensus.” When scientists are being honest, they generally recognize LNT as part of a precautionary principle approach, which may make sense as the foundation of “risk assessment.” The widespread assumption of LNT in regulatory agencies, and among scientists who work in such agencies, is understandable, but LNT remains an assumption. Nonetheless, we already see LNT hawked as a consensus, which under Cheng’s Consenus Rule would become the key dispositive issue, while quashing the mountain of evidence that there are, in fact, defense mechanisms to carcinogenesis that result in practical thresholds.

Beyond, regulatory pronouncements, some areas of scientific endeavor have themselves become politicized and extremist. Tobacco smoking surely causes lung cancer, but the studies of environmental tobacco smoking and lung cancer have been oversold. In areas of non-scientific disputes, such as history of alleged corporate malfeasance, juries will be treated to “the consensus” of Marxist labor historians, without having to consider the actual underlying historical documents. Cheng tells us that his Consensus Rule is a “realistic way of treating nonscientific expertise,”[19] which would seem to cover historian expert witness. Yet here, lawyers and lay fact finders are fully capable of exploring the glib historical conclusions of historian witnesses with cross-examination on the underlying documentary facts of the proffered opinions.

The Alleged Warrant for the Consensus Rule

If Professor Cheng is correct that the current judicial system, with decisions by juries and judges, is epistemically incompetent, does his Consensus Rule necessarily follow?  Not really. If we are going to engage in radical reforms, then the institutionalization of blue-ribbon juries would make much greater sense. As for Cheng’s claim that knowledge is “social,” the law of evidence already permits the use of true consensus statements as learned treatises, both to impeach expert witnesses who disagree, and (in federal court) to urge the truth of the learned treatise.

The gatekeeping process of Rule 702, which Professor Cheng would throw overboard, has important advantages in that judges ideally will articulate reasons for finding expert witness opinion testimony admissible or not. These reasons can be evaluated, discussed, and debated, with judges, lawyers, and the public involved. This gatekeeping process is rational and socially open.

Some Other Missteps in Cheng’s Argument

Experts on Both Sides are Too Extreme

Cheng’s proposal is based, in part, upon his assessment that the adversarial system causes the parties to choose expert witnesses “at the extremes.” Here again, Cheng provides no empirical evidence for his assessment. There is a mechanical assumption often made by people who do not bother to learn the details of a scientific dispute that the truth must somehow lie in the “middle.” For instance, in MDL 926, the silicone gel breast implant litigation, presiding Judge Sam Pointer complained about the parties’ expert witnesses being too extreme. Judge Pointer  believed that MDL judges should not entertain Rule 702 challenges, which were in his view properly heard by the transferor courts. As a result, Judge Robert Jones, and then Judge Jack Weinstein, conducted thorough Rule 702 hearings and found that the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses’ opinions were unreliable and insufficiently supported by the available evidence.[20] Judge Weinstein started the process of selecting court-appointed expert witnesses for the remaining New York cases, which goaded Judge Pointer into taking the process back to the MDL court level. After appointing four, highly qualified expert witnesses, Judge Pointer continued to believe that the parties’ expert witnesses were “extremists,” and that the courts’ own experts would come down somewhere between them.  When the court-appointed experts filed their reports, Judge Pointer was shocked that all four of his experts sided with the defense in rejecting the tendentious claims of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses.

Statistical Significance

Along the way, in advocating his radical proposal, Professor Cheng made some other curious announcements. For instance, he tells us that “[w]hile historically used as a rule of thumb, statisticians have now concluded that using the 0.05 [p-value] threshold is more distortive than helpful.”[21] Cheng’s purpose here is unclear, but the source he cited does not remotely support his statement, and certainly not his gross overgeneralization about “statisticians.” If this is the way he envisions experts will report “consensus,” then his program seems broken at its inception. The American Statistical Association’s (ASA) p-value “consensus” statement articulated six principles, the third of which noted that

“[s]cientific conclusions and business or policy decisions should not be based only on whether a p-value passes a specific threshold.”

This is a few light years away from statisticians’ concluding that statistical significance thresholds are more distortive than helpful. The ASA p-value statement further explains that

“[t]he widespread use of ‘statistical significance’ (generally interpreted as ‘p < 0.05’) as a license for making a claim of a scientific finding (or implied truth) leads to considerable distortion of the scientific process.”[22]

In the science of health effects, statistical significance remains extremely important, but it has never been a license for making causal claims. As Sir Austin Bradford Hill noted in his famous after-dinner speech, ruling out chance (and bias) as an explanation for an association was merely a predicate for evaluating the association for causality.[23]

Over-endorsing Animal Studies

Under Professor Cheng’s Consensus Rule, the appropriate consensus might well be one generated solely by animal studies. Cheng tells that “perhaps” scientists do not consider toxicology when the pertinent epidemiology is “clear.” When the epidemiology, however, is unclear, scientists consider toxicology.[24] Well, of course, but the key question is whether a consensus about causation in humans will be based upon non-human animal studies. Cheng seems to answer this question in the affirmative by criticizing courts that have required epidemiologic studies “even though the entire field of toxicology uses tissue and animal studies to make inferences, often in combination with and especially in the absence of epidemiology.”[25] The vitality of the field of toxicology is hardly undermined by its not generally providing sufficient grounds for judgments of human causation.

Relative Risk Greater Than Two

In the midst of his argument for the Consensus Rule, Cheng points critically to what he calls “questionable proxies” for scientific certainty. One such proxy is the judicial requirement of risk ratios in excess of two. His short discussion appears to be focused upon the inference of specific causation in a given case, but it leads to a non-sequitur:

“Some courts have required a relative risk of 2.0 in toxic tort cases, requiring a doubling of the population risk before considering causation.73 But the preponderance standard does not require that the substance more likely than not caused any case of the disease in the population, it requires that the substance more likely than not caused the plaintiff’s case.”[26]

Of course, it is exactly because we are interested in the probability of causation of the plaintiff’s case, that we advert to the risk ratio to give us some sense whether “more likely than not” the exposure caused plaintiff’s case. Unless plaintiff can show he is somehow unique, he is “any case.” In many instances, plaintiff cannot show how he is different from the participants of the study that gave rise to the risk ratio less than two.

[1] Edward K. Cheng, “The Consensus Rule: A New Approach to Scientific Evidence,” 75 Vanderbilt L. Rev. 407 (2022) [Consensus Rule].

[2] Consensus Rule at 410 (“The judge and the jury, lacking in expertise, are not competent to handle the questions that the Daubert framework assigns to them.”)

[3] Consensus Rule at 467 (“Under the Consensus Rule, experts no longer offer their personal opinions on causation or teach the jury how to assess the underlying studies. Instead, their testimony focuses on what the expert community as a whole believes about causation.”)

[4] Consensus Rule at 467.

[5] Consensus Rule at 437.

[6] Consensus Rule at 434.

[7] Consensus Rule at 434.

[8] Consensus Rule at 422.

[9] Consensus Rule at 429.

[10] Consensus Rule at 432-33.

[11] Consensus Rule at 434.

[12] Consensus Rule at 456.

[13] Consensus Rule at 457.

[14] Consensus Rule at 459.

[15] Steven E. Nissen, M.D., and Kathy Wolski, M.P.H., “Effect of Rosiglitazone on the Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Death from Cardiovascular Causes,” 356 New Engl. J. Med. 2457 (2007).

[16] P.D. Home, et al., “Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiovascular Outcomes in Oral Agent Combination Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes (RECORD), 373 Lancet 2125 (2009).

[17] Consensus Rule at 458.

[18] Jonathan M. Samet, et al., Asbestos: Selected Health Effects (2006).

[19] Consensus Rule at 445.

[20] Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 947 F. Supp.1387 (D. Or. 1996) (excluding plaintiffs’ expert witnesses’ causation opinions); In re Breast Implant Cases, 942 F. Supp. 958 (E. & S.D.N.Y. 1996) (granting partial summary judgment on claims of systemic disease causation).

[21] Consenus Rule at 424 (citing Ronald L. Wasserstein & Nicole A. Lazar, “The ASA Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose,” 70 Am. Statistician 129, 131 (2016)).

[22] Id.

[23] Austin Bradford Hill, “The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?” 58 Proc. Royal Soc’y Med. 295, 295 (1965). See Schachtman, “Ruling Out Bias & Confounding is Necessary to Evaluate Expert Witness Causation Opinions” (Oct. 29, 2018); “Woodside & Davis on the Bradford Hill Considerations” (Aug. 23, 2013); Frank C. Woodside, III & Allison G. Davis, “The Bradford Hill Criteria: The Forgotten Predicate,” 35 Thomas Jefferson L. Rev. 103 (2013).

[24] Consensus Rule at 444.

[25] Consensus Rule at 424 & n. 74 (citing to one of multiple court advisory expert witnesses in Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 947 F. Supp.1387, 1449 (D. Or. 1996), who suggested that toxicology would be appropriate to consider when the epidemiology was not clear). Citing to one outlier advisor is a rather strange move for Cheng considering that the “consensus” was readily discernible to the trial judge in Hall, and to Judge Jack Weinstein, a few months later, in In re Breast Implant Cases, 942 F. Supp. 958 (E. & S.D.N.Y. 1996).

[26] Consensus Rule at 424 & n. 73 (citing Lucinda M. Finley, “Guarding the Gate to the Courthouse: How Trial Judges Are Using Their Evidentiary Screening Role to Remake Tort Causation Rules,” 49 Depaul L. Rev. 335, 348–49 (2000). See Schachtman, “Rhetorical Strategy in Characterizing Scientific Burdens of Proof” (Nov. 15, 2014).

Posted in Causation, Expert Witnesses, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence | 4 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »