By
Joseph Annotti
Sister
Mary Isabel was perhaps the greatest teacher I ever had. Among the many lessons
she drilled into my classmates and me that has stood the test of time and
memory was the scientific method.
Nearly
every American was taught the same six steps that serve as a fundamental
building block to scientific education: Make an observation, ask a question,
form a hypothesis, make a prediction based on the hypothesis, test the
prediction, and use the results to make new hypotheses or new predictions.
I
have since applied the principles of the scientific method throughout my
personal and professional life because it makes sense: One shouldn't make major
decisions based on assumptions. Rely on facts.
Yet,
a recent decision by a U.S. District Court judge to prohibit scientists from
conducting an objective and unbiased research study on a specific chemical’s
cancer-causing capability flies in the face of the principles of the scientific
method and is further evidence of the growing disconnect between fact-based
science and economic coercion in courtrooms across the United States.
It
began with two significant—and absolutely contradictory—legal developments
surrounding the use of glyphosate (the active ingredient in the popular
herbicide Roundup), a chemical that has been extensively studied and
widely used by commercial farmers and backyard gardeners for decades.
In
an earlier ruling, a federal judge permanently blocked efforts by the state of
California to require cancer warnings on Roundup, citing overwhelming
scientific evidence that such labels would be misleading, as they were not
backed up by regulatory findings. His ruling aligned with findings from
numerous domestic and international regulatory agencies, all of which have
found no association between glyphosate and cancer risk.
While
the ruling stood as a significant victory for science, it appears to have not
been enough in the court of public opinion—or economics. That same week, Bayer
opted to pay more than $10 billion to settle claims that glyphosate had caused
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. While most may believe these funds will find their way
to deserving victims, the hard truth is the majority of these funds will go to
attorneys.
Bayer
made the decision to settle the existing claims rather than spend decades—and
incalculable costs—to defend each case in state courts, the ultimate example of
the “science vs. settle” dilemma.
However,
Bayer and the plaintiffs’ attorneys included a provision to settle
all future claims: Attorneys for both sides asked the court to appoint a
scientific panel, funded by Bayer, to conduct an independent, unbiased review
to evaluate the relationships between glyphosate and cancer. Of note, both
sides agreed to accept the researchers’ findings—regardless of outcome—as the
basis and precedent for future court decisions, meaning that all future rulings
would be based on evidence-backed research.
Finally,
the scientific method to the rescue—or so it would seem.
Unfortunately,
the judge poured cold water on the proposed study, saying that judges
and juries are capable of making decisions on complex and confusing scientific
issues without the benefit of having all the objective evidence available,
essentially eliminating the chance to conduct a fair and objective independent
review.
This
is a massive loss for science and for those who respect expertise in both the
courts of law and public opinion. The decision has the potential to elevate
emotion over objective evidence in the courtroom, a move that puts businesses
and consumers with legitimate claims in limbo and at the discretion of bias.
And
it will only proliferate the “jackpot justice” system of mass class action
lawsuits that clog courtrooms, force companies to pay billions of dollars in
settlements for claims that are not backed by scientific evidence (most of
which goes to a handful of large law firms), and increase the prices of
countless household products for consumers.
Our
teachers taught us better than this. We cannot leave legal decisions involving
chemicals up to emotion or assumptions. We need to return to basics—to
employing common sense in science, examining objective evidence, and relying on
the fundamental building blocks that we were taught as children.
Joseph
Annotti is the president and CEO of the Center for Truth in Science.
No comments:
Post a Comment