Junk Science and the Law

Due to the success of these legal attacks, now there are even courses offered by trial lawyers that teach the use of allegations of scientific misconduct as a method for disputing unwelcome research findings.

Faith Healing

Faith healers have found a convenient crack in the law that allows them to be protected by the first amendment while "practicing medicine without a license" and charging for their services. The Christian Science Church in particular enjoys a host of secular benefits such as reimbursement from private health insurance companies, federal funding from Medicare, and recognition as a health care provider from the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS actually authorizes deductions for fees paid to church practitioners (who pray for the "patient") and for sanatoria (where patients go to be prayed for) as medical expenses. Just this year the United States Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to the federal law that allows Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for the nonmedical services that are provided in clinics run by the Christian Science Church (Children's Health Care Is a Legal Duty v. McMullan, No. 00-914). A number of legal scholars have concluded that tort (civil lawsuit) liability for negligent con duct in the faith healing treatment of children is the least restrictive means toward fulfilling the state's compelling interest of safeguarding the health and welfare of its youth" (Dodes 1987). Yet, at this time, most states have specific laws preventing such lawsuits, thus allowing and encouraging this type of quackery.

Conclusions

Justice Blackmun concluded his opinion that repealed the Frye Rule by noting that science and law both attempt to find truth but that there are important differences in their methods and goals (Annas 1994). Justice Blackmun stared: "Scientific conclusions are subject to perpetual revision. Law, on the other hand, must resolve disputes finally and quickly. . . ." The Federal Rules of Evidence were designed to promote "a quick, final, and binding legal judgment... about a particular set of events in the past not for the exhaustive search for cosmic understanding" (Daubert v. Merrell 1993). Unfortunately many jurists have nor taken Justice Blackmun's advice to become knowledgeable about science. Today, on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia denigrates the truth of evolution and supports the teaching of creationism. Fortunately other courts, as in the recently decided Kansas creationism case, have heeded Justice Blackmun's warnings and have made the effort to abide by his recommendations.

Harassment of scientists, health-care professionals, consumer groups, and the media can be a substantial impediment to pursuing and publishing valid research on certain controversial topics. Withholding or entirely avoiding peer-reviewed funding would "slow the production of objective knowledge, force investigators to seek funding that may not be free of conflict of interest, and leave patients, physicians, and insurers without essential scientific information" (Deyo 1997).