Book Note Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom

Scientists, as expert witnesses, can aid juries greatly in their deliberations by explaining technical matters in terms easily comprehensible to jurors. When, however, the expert testimony is based on mere conjecture, speculation, or poor methodology, it can mislead the jury. Such evidence is commonly referred to as junk science.: Contrary to what might be expected, junk science results not only from the work of readily identifiable charlatans, but also from the work of respectable pre~,-~sionals who, in advancing their hypotheses, lose perspective and falsify data or disregard evidence challenging their hypotheses. In Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom ("Galileo's Revenge"), 3 Peter Huber describes the problems that have resulted from the virtually unrestricted admission of junk science into the courtroom and proposes ways to curb it. Huber claims that "unscrupulous" lawyers have long made healthy livings by using expert witnesses to fabricate causes of action. For example, he describes a recent case in which expert testimony was used to argue that a plaintiff's subjection to a CAT scan harmed her psychic abilities (p. 4). When plaintiffs' attorneys offer such scientifically unsupportable evidence against deep-pocket defendants, juries often find in the plaintiffs' favor, regardless of the evidence's integrity. Indeed, in the case of the CAT scan, the jury awarded the plaintiff roughly one million dollars, although the decision was subsequently overruled. Perhaps jury awards based on junk science are attributable to the human