| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LETTER |
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to W. Kip Viscusi, PhD, Program on Empirical Legal Studies, Harvard Law School, Hauser 302, Cambridge, MA 02138 (e-mail: kip{at}law.harvard.edu).
In "How Tobacco-Friendly Science Escapes Scrutiny in the Courtroom,"1 Friedman et al. falsely characterize my research and my role in the tobacco litigation. The general theme of the article is that experts testifying on behalf of the tobacco industry were purveyors of junk science. The authors claim that I was "excluded" from testifying in the Minnesota tobacco trial and that this exclusion was because of some defect in my testimony or research.
The word "excluded" has a legal and evidentiary meaning, which is well known to the article’s authors. I was not "excluded" from testifying in that case or in any other trial. Instead, my testimony was simply deferred owing to alleged procedural failings on the part of defense attorneys. Friedman et al. never acknowledge that the trial was not completed because an interim settlement was reached; had the trial continued, I might have been called to the stand later. I have testified in 10 tobacco cases, all of which took place after the Minnesota case, and have never been precluded from testifying on Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc or any other grounds.
Contrary to the claims in the article, my publications have never been supported by the tobacco industry. Moreover, the studies I have relied upon in my expert testimony in tobacco cases have been published by the leading peer-reviewed university presses, such as Oxford University Press and University of Chicago Press, and by some of the most distinguished peer-reviewed economics journals, such as the Review of Economics and Statistics and the Journal of Political Economy. To suggest that these groups, considered preeminent in their field, would publish work based on "tainted surveys" and "junk science"1 defies reason and experience. This research and my other work on decisions involving health and safety risks are among the most widely cited publications in the economics field.
After asserting that my testimony had been excluded and that I was among the experts who practiced "dubious scientific scholarship,"1(S16) the authors suggest that it will be a simple matter for future plaintiffs to launch Daubert challenges against me, predicated on "[t]he fact that there is now a foundation for drafting an effective Daubert motion, based on the groundwork already laid in the Minnesota case."1(pS19) I welcome such opportunities to defend my scholarship in court.
Reference
1. Friedman LC, Daynard RA, Banthin CN. How tobacco-friendly science escapes scrutiny in the courtroom. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(suppl 1):S16–S20.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
