Product Description

A scathing account of how bad science gets a serious hearing in the courts. "A valuable and timely look at a crucial aspect of America's litigation explosion."--Fortune

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #271784 in Books
• Published on: 1993-03-23
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 288 pages

From Publishers Weekly
Forbes magazine columnist Huber uncovers another cost of science illiteracy in the U.S.: the unwarranted authority of "junk science" as legal testimony in our litigious society. This anecdotal history of science in the service of liability lawyers--the "expert witness" industry--is both a stylish legal brief for sensible reforms and a side tour of the medical follies of the century. Huber condemns the "verbal dilapidation of science" by rogue scientists posing as misunderstood Galileos and the "let-it-all-in" atmosphere of the courts. Legal scholars and attorneys might well take note of Huber's observations, while all readers can take pleasure in his tempered yet passionate appeal to restore the rule of science fact in our courts.
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
Huber, educated as an engineer and considered one of the country's leading experts on liability law, shows how lawyers exploit science illiteracy by using professional "expert" witnesses to press unsubstantiated claims. He defines "junk science" as the mirror of real science and uses as examples astronomy and astrology, chemistry and alchemy, and pharmacology and homeopathy. It is often difficult to distinguish between junk science and liability science, a speculative theory that expects lawyers, judges, and juries to search for causes that may be explained by established scientific principles. Huber documents this phenomenon by citing several claims and concludes that the best test of certainty is the science of publication, replication, verification, consensus, and peer review. For public and university libraries with collections in popular science. Also appropriate for law libraries.
- Bruce Slutsky, St. John's Univ. Lib., Jamaica, N.Y.
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Kirkus Reviews
A polemic twice as long as it should be by lawyer/engineer Huber (Liability, 1988), now taking aim at the hired-hand expert witnesses who are called upon in liability cases where appeal to science is the issue. Where are the days of yore when judges exercised judgment about the credentials of experts? Or when juries acted on the conviction that victims might be self-destructive, ignorant, or otherwise to blame? All that is gone in these days of ``junk'' science, says Huber, in which self-proclaimed fringe scientists are given equal weight in the courtroom. So we hear about trauma- induced cancers, chemically induced AIDS, the dangers of all IUDs and of self-accelerating Audi cars (dramatically depicted on 60 Minutes). Huber sees the new let-it-all-hang-in courtroom behavior as rooted in a new liability-science that uses law to effect social control by charging accidents to the person (or agent) who might have prevented it most cheaply. So instead of blaming the victim for mistaking the accelerator for the brake, blame the car designer; blame the tobacco company and not the chain-smoker; blame the IUD for pelvic inflammatory disease and not its promiscuous user. Indeed, Huber's blame-the-victim harping mars what is often an incisive indictment of stupidity, arrogance, and deception masking as fair justice. Moreover, the question of why America is so litigious a society, driven to vicious circles of fear and distrust, suit and countersuit, and what can be done about it are barely touched upon. Huber's appeal to good science and the noble search for truth are to be commended, but, it should be noted, manufacturers do make mistakes that cost lives, victims are often innocent, and medical science has yet to reach consensus concerning the cause and cure of many an ailment. -- Copyright ©1991, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

Customer Reviews

Suspect scholarship but an amusing jeremiad
Peter Huber is the principal critic of the rise of tort and consequent dilution of contract. His views on judicial nannying were well set out in his book "Liability". He now sets his sights on perverted or suspect science which he sees as a convenient tool to effect an extension of tort and product liability.

The book is an easy - not to say breezy - read. Despite the severe health warning I give them, my students all love this book. Huber's thesis is a simple one - bad science in the court room has helped to make bad law in the precedent book. He claims that there are too many cowboy scientists acting as hired guns and peddling their crank theories, half truths and cynical reservations to anyone who will buy their views.

The telling of the tale is quickfire, lay reader stuff rather than law review scholarship. This earned Huber a painstakingly scholarly refutation by Kenneth Cheesebro in his review article "Galileo's Retort". However, Huber's v! iews draw recent support in commentary by Zakaria Erzinclioglu in the journal Nature (4/30/1998)where a recently retired forensic scientist also claimed there were too many cowboy practitioners whose services can be brought at a price.

It's entertaining and thought provoking - but needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Excellent overview of the abuse of science by lawyers
I found this book to be an excellent read, I am not a lawyer but I am familiar with statistics and causality. This books makes an excellent argument whose conclusion you could guess: some of the most costly court judgments in American history did not have scientifically valid evidence to support them. Trial lawyers litigate scientifically questionable cases in order to take a shot at potentially huge awards and they will argue anything in the hope that that the average jury will buy into it. Given a society in which every wrong and every grievance is assumed to be a result of someone's victimization, large companies are an obvious target. Thus many birth defects, accidents and many other human tragedies can be capitalized on by litigants for great financial advantage by laying the problem at the door of a "deep pocket", even when the causal connection is completely unfounded or absurd.

Huber steps through several fascinating cases (including Audi's "uncontrolled acceleration" problem and Benedectin, the morning sickness drug), showing both the junk science employed and the deceptive tactics of the attorneys. Huber effectively makes several important points: that bad science can crowd out good science because of bad precedents and court procedures that don't serve the interests of truth. He recommends reforms that would give greater primacy to scientifically valid evidence and which would more easily exclude patently false scientific claims.

It makes enormous sense to anyone who wants to see justice served and in seeing that the public is not denied products and medicines because of the enrichment of clever tort lawyers, not to mention the enormous cost to our society of this type of unfounded legal extortion.

I can't figure out the gripe of the guy who gave this book one star -- The New York Times raved about this well written book, and for good reason -- it is deeply disturbing to see how justice can be miscarried. My guess is that many members of the legal profession don't want laymen to think they can understand the complexities of their profession, and thereby be outraged by what a commonsense understanding of some of their behavior would dictate. These issues are too important to be left entirely to the lawyers, and a system that is unlikely to be reformed if left solely to their efforts. Huber has done a magnificent job of making these fascinating issues accessible without being mired in legal jargon and making it clear how every citizen's interests are at risk when junk science prevails.

You are likely to read this book in one sitting if you get caught up in it like I did.

An Engineer's View
A must read for any person involved with the product realization process. The only way to protect you and your company against junk science when you are hauled into court with your product or service is to understand that junk science exists and to be prepared to provide real and concrete data to support the validity of your design, not simply close your eyes to their opinions and say "There is nothing wrong".

Several of the companies mentioned in the book were severally damaged by what this books talks about. A number of excellent products have been taken of the market never to come back and more will never see the light of day because of those who have no other desire that to either make money or push their unsubstantiated agendas have been allowed to take advantage of our tort court systems in the USA.

Yes, some not so good products also have been taken off the market but for the wrong reasons. This too keeps other excellent products locked away in the closet.

In our increasingly technological world lack of understanding in science and technology along of this issues by both sides of the junk science debate will only result in more witch-hunts and more tilting at windmills.

To be successful in life one cannot simply allow them selves to be a victim, we must understand the world around us. No matter how good it really is, everything has a cost, everything has a dark side, but even with these costs and risks that do exist we must address the real issues and not simply make someone pay for the downside of life just because they can.