‘A tough experience.’ Why would a scientist serve as an expert witness?

Late last year, the sound of scientific argument echoed through a New York City courtroom packed with legal and financial experts. Studies from top epidemiology journals flashed onto large screens, as lawyers debated their statistical power and whether their conclusions rested on “cherry-picked” data. Billions of dollars were at stake. The scientists themselves were absent, and attorneys argued on their behalf. But the crucial issue was whether some of the scientists would be allowed to appear at a future trial, where they would tell jurors that children had developed autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as a result of exposure to the painkiller acetaminophen, often sold as Tylenol, while still in the womb. Five researchers from Columbia University, the Baylor College of Medicine, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and other prominent institutions had submitted reports arguing that acetaminophen’s links to autism and ADHD are real. They’d been paid by lawyers for the plaintiffs, who included parents alleging their children had been harmed by the painkiller. But, “These scientists are not professional witnesses,” plaintiffs’ attorney Ashley Keller told the court as he displayed their faces on a screen. “They care deeply about public health.” The opposing side had its own scientists—an additional half-dozen of them, with equally illustrious academic credentials, paid by companies that make or sell acetaminop...
Source: Science of Aging Knowledge Environment - Category: Geriatrics Source Type: research