In the 21st century, people across the globe encounter more suspected toxins on a daily basis than any time in the history of our planet. Whether a suspected toxin increases the risk of or causes illness or disease is a central question that surfaces in very different ways in the scientific, regulatory and legal communities. There are critical differences in how scientific data is viewed, interpreted and applied when determining causation in a scientific, public health/regulatory, or legal context. Routinely, scientists form hypotheses and study whether there is a scientifically-established causal connection between exposure to a toxin and illness or disease. By contrast, while regulatory and health-based agencies/organizations are science-driven, tend to focus on broader questions on whether a toxin poses a potential health hazard to the public. In the courtroom, courts and juries consider whether exposure to a toxin is a “legal” cause of an injury. Juries are often incapable of truly understanding the differences between good and bad science, especially when well-qualified experts on both sides appear convincing. The fallout is that: (1) companies can no longer look to reliable science to dictate reasonable conduct; (2) the scientific process is diluted and replaced, at least in our court system, with a distorted misperception on what science tells us; and (3) it encourages litigation of scientifically-unsupported claims with enormous financial consequences, both in defending the claims and paying out compensation. The key to solving this problem is to educate courts on how to objectively assess the literature and only permit expert opinions that meet the high standards of truly reliable science; thus, truly fulfilling their gatekeeping role of only permitting scientifically-reliable expert opinions to support claims of toxic exposure. The scientific, regulatory, and legal fields can better support courts in their gatekeeping responsibilities by continuing this open dialogue and transparently acknowledging differing opinions, methodologies, and missions.
Boston, C., DeWitt, J., Welter, J. (2022). Toxic Exposure and Disease: Perspectives from the Scientific, Regulatory and Legal Communities On Causation. Journal of Science and Law, 10(1), 1-17. doi: 10.35005/w1za-fh72