SCIENCE AND LAW
The case of the Italian Supreme Court ruling
Paolo Vecchia
Former Chairman of ICNIRP
1
2
The case
• The Supreme Court confirmed a sentence issued
by the Work Section of an Italian Court of Appeal in
December 2009
• A professional was diagnosed with a trigeminal
neuroma, claimed to be due to the intensive use of
mobile phone
• The court recognized the occupational cause of the
tumor
• The Italian Workers' Compensation Authority
(INAIL) was ordered to award the applicant a
compensation for a high degree (80%) permanent
disability
3
The Sentence - 1
Emphasis on
• a recent review (Kundi, 2009): “a very clear table
summarizing some studies published between 2005
and 2009. In three of them (Hardell group) a
significant increase of acoustic neuroma is evident”
• a single paper (Hardell & Carlberg, 2009): “based on
a review of studies previously published by the same
group […]. For acoustic neuroma, the findings
indicate ORs of 1.5 for cordless use and 1.7 for
mobile phone use. For use >10 years, ORs are 1.3
and 1.9, respectively”.
4
The Sentence - 2
“The WHO study (?), dating back to 2000, and obviously
based upon even older data (?), does not take into account
the more recent - and much more intensive and diffuse - use
of such devices, nor of the slow growth of the tumors under
consideration. Therefore, the 2009 studies, based on more
recent data, are per se more reliable.
The number of cases [in the 2009 studies] is not low; on the
contrary, it is definitely exaustive, since cases are 678 (?).
Differently from the IARC study (?), co-funded by mobile
phone manufacturers, the studies quoted by the Expert are
independent (?).”
5
Critics and questions
• Knowledge of the literature
• Wheighing of evidence
• Understanding of the issues
• Expert witness (role and qualification)
• Court (ability to evaluate the relevance and the reliability
of the expert testimony)
6
Who were the experts?
Court-appointed:
Physician, General Medicine
Plaintiff-appointed:
Physician, Neurosurgery
Are these profiles enough for qualification
as experts in the case?
Do criteria for such a qualification exist?
7
Federal Rules of Evidence
U.S. Federal Law 1975, Last Amendment Dec. 2010
Rule 702 – Testimony by experts
• The expert must be qualified to render opinion
• Trial courts must ensure that scientific evidence is
relevant and reliable before admitting it at trial
• Testimony based on sufficient facts or data
• Testimony product of reliable principles and methods
• Witness reliably applied the methods to the facts of the case
• The subject of the expert’s testimony must be “scientific
knowledge”. Admissible expert testimony must be based
on knowledge derived by the scientific method and not on
subjective belief or unsupported speculation
8
The “Daubert Standard”
The reliability of an expert’s witness can be judged
based on:
• whether the expert’s theory or technique can be (or
has been) tested
• whether the theory or technique has been subjected
to peer review or publication
• the known or potential error rate of the theory
• whether there is general acceptance in the relevant
scientific community
9
Practical tools
A demonstration Project of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science
10
Annex to the
Civil Procedure Rules
(UK)
11
The debate is open...
National Research Council
National Academy of Science
12
Conclusions
• The Italian case reflects the importance and the urgence of
•
•
•
established criteria for the selection of experts in courtrooms
Such criteria do not exist in Italy and, apparently, do not exist
in most Countries
The contribution of scientific bodies to the establishmnt of
criteria and guidelines is essential
More in general, actions are needed to bring law closer to
science, and science closer to law
13
14
The response of science
15
A thing is not just because it is a law.
But it must be law because it is just
Charles-Louis de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, 1748
16
Thank you
for your attention
17