Lessons from Litigation over Silicone Breast Implants: A Call for Activism by Scientists
James T. Rosenbaum
In ongoing litigation to determine
whether silicone breast implants cause autoimmune disease, the question
of what constitutes good science is being addressed by courts, and the
answer has implications for approximately $50 billion in settlements. A
federal court recently used neutral scientific advisers in excluding
the admissibility of the "expert" opinion that implants cause
systemic disease. The lesson from this litigation paradigm is that
scientists should actively ensure that neutral, reliable scientific
expertise is available to the court.
The author is at Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health Sciences
University, 3375 S.W. Terwilliger Boulevard, Portland, OR 97201, USA,
and is a Senior Scholar supported by Research to Prevent Blindness. The
author has provided medico-legal advice for attorneys representing
Baxter Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dow Chemical, Minnesota Mining
& Manufacturing (3M), and plaintiffs in silicone breast implant
litigation. The author has testified in court proceedings on behalf of
manufacturers.
