Here’s another entry in why I think our current judicial system sucks: Fast-multiplying lawsuits can stymie medical science. Actually, I was surprised by one reason why:
The lead author, Brad A. Racette, M.D., associate professor of neurology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, writes from personal experience: His studies tentatively linking welding to increased risk of Parkinson’s disease resulted in a torrent of subpoenas for research data. Responding to them slows or stops his follow-up research.”Participation in the legal system can be a huge burden on a researcher’s schedule,” Racette says. “There comes a point where a scientist needs the right to be able to say, testifying in court is not what I’m supposed to be doing, I’m supposed to be studying disease.”
And the authors are grown up to realize conflicts of interest cut both ways (i.e. both plaintiffs and defendants):
The authors note that the substantial financial interests at stake in lawsuits often leads to biased research by well-paid expert witnesses. They cite the example of a Texas doctor found to be overdiagnosing a disease known as silicosis. The doctor had a financial interest in the number of patients diagnosed.Peer review is of course a part of the regular scientific process, Racette notes, but a knowledgeable expert can design a study with a predetermined goal of discrediting earlier studies that linked a suspected toxin to a disease.
Industries on the defensive have also attempted to impugn the credibility of researchers. As an example, the authors cite the case of Herbert Needleman, M.D., professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh and the first scientist to link lead exposure to low IQ levels in children. The lead industry attacked Needleman’s integrity, alleging academic fraud and triggering investigations by the Federal Scientific Integrity Board and his university. The investigations failed to find any evidence of academic fraud, and Needleman’s results were later replicated, leading to beneficial changes such as the removal of lead from gasoline.
Slow, capricious, expensive, and fails to deliver justice is how I would describe our system, and on both the civil and criminal sides of the house. This is just one more example.
Full Disclosure: While I haven’t met them, both authors are on staff at St. Louis Children’s Hospital where my daughter has had two visits and of which I have the highest opinion.
