Junk Science and the Law

The results of the silicone breast-implant litigation are far reaching. Silicone is found in numerous medical devices, many of them vital. As of today manufacturers of penile implants and the Norplant contraceptive device, both of which contain silicone, are being sued. There is also an implied threat to the suppliers of the raw materials and they may stop selling to makers of medical devices for fear of product liability lawsuits.

Equally dangerous is the covert encroachment of litigation into the medical-research community. Scientists may well avoid research into controversial areas in order to avoid protracted and expensive litigation.

Novel Courtroom Techniques

SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) have a long history of use by people with private financial interests that might be jeopardized by activists with opposing points of view (Canan 1992 and Pring 1992). SLAPP suits are usually without merit, but they discourage honest criticism and activities such as circulating petitions or testifying at public hearings, or publishing articles. CSICOP, the publisher of SKEPTICAL INQUIRER was subject to just such a suit, brought by Uri Geller. The intent of such suits is to "turn the tables on the claimants," force them from a political to a judicial forum, and "cast them as defendants." This strategy masks the original issue, transforms a legitimate public dispute into a matter for legal adjudication, and undermines the resources, commitment, and vocabulary of opponents. Even though most such lawsuits are dismissed, "the financial cost, lost time, and emotional burdens imposed on their targets often achieve the goal of 'chilling' public discussion" (Deyo 1997).

A new and particularly noxious use of the law is being employed by some alternative medical care advocates; harassment and legal attacks on researchers whose findings do not support the advocate's position. For example Simon et al. (1993) conducted a controlled evaluation of the, neuropsychological, psychological, and immunologic function of patients with a diagnosis of multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome. This disorder is treated by licensed physicians (who call themselves clinical ecologists) as well as avant-garde health practitioners, yet the consensus of scientific opinion is that this diagnosis and its treatments have no scientific validity (Barrett 1997). Simon's study, not surprisingly, discounted the value of the costly diagnostic tests that clinical ecologists use to support disability and liability claims for chemical sensitivity. The researchers were then attacked by plaintiffs' attorneys, advocacy organizations for people who thought they suffered from chemical sensitivity, representatives fr om immunologic-testing laboratories, and prominent "expert" witnesses. All these participants had financial interests in maintaining the legitimacy of multiple chemical sensitivity. The attacks included "multiple complaints of scientific misconduct to the sponsoring institutions and the federal Office of Research Integrity, requests to the medical disciplinary board of Washington State that investigators' licenses be revoked, and distribution of materials at scientific meetings that accused investigators of fraud and conspiracy. Laboratory records were sequestered by the University of Washington under the rules of the National Institutes of Health and the Office of Research Integrity. Individual patients at Group Health Cooperative, where Simon worked, were contacted and encouraged to attack his credibility" (Deyo 1997).