1 / 17

The case

SCIENCE AND LAW The case of the Italian Supreme Court ruling Paolo Vecchia Former Chairman of ICNIRP. The case. The Supreme Court confirmed a sentence issued by the Work Section of an Italian Court of Appeal in December 2009

shalin
Download Presentation

The case

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SCIENCE AND LAWThe case of the Italian Supreme Court rulingPaolo VecchiaFormer Chairman of ICNIRP

  2. The case • The Supreme Court confirmed a sentenceissuedby the Work SectionofanItalian Court of Appeal in December 2009 • A professionalwasdiagnosedwith a trigeminal neuroma, claimedtobe due to the intensive useof 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 recentreview (Kundi, 2009): “a verycleartablesummarizing some studiespublishedbetween 2005 and 2009. In threeofthem (Hardell group) a significantincreaseofacoustic neuroma isevident” • a single paper (Hardell & Carlberg, 2009): “based on a reviewofstudiespreviouslypublishedby the samegroup […]. Foracoustic neuroma, the findings indicate ORsof 1.5 for cordless use and 1.7 for mobile phoneuse. Foruse >10 years, ORs are 1.3 and 1.9, respectively”.

  4. The Sentence - 2 “The WHO study(?), dating back to 2000, and obviouslybaseduponevenolder data (?), doesnot take into account the more recent - and much more intensive and diffuse - useofsuchdevices, norof the slow growthof the tumors under consideration. Therefore, the 2009 studies, based on more recent data, are per se more reliable. The numberofcases [in the 2009 studies] isnot low; on the contrary, itisdefinitelyexaustive, sincecases are 678 (?). Differentlyfrom the IARC study(?), co-fundedby mobile phonemanufacturers, the studiesquotedby the Expert are independent(?).”

  5. Critics and questions • Knowledgeof the literature • Wheighingofevidence • Understandingof the issues • Expert witness (role and qualification) • Court (abilitytoevaluate the relevance and the reliabilityof the expert testimony)

  6. Whowere the experts? Court-appointed: Physician, General Medicine Plaintiff-appointed: Physician, Neurosurgery Are theseprofilesenoughforqualificationasexperts in the case? Do criteriaforsuch a qualificationexist?

  7. FederalRulesofEvidenceU.S. FederalLaw 1975, Last AmendmentDec. 2010 Rule 702 –Testimonybyexperts • The expert must be qualified to render opinion • Trial courts must ensure that scientific evidence is relevant and reliable before admitting it at trial • Testimonybased on sufficientfacts or data • Testimonyproduct of reliableprinciples and methods • Witnessreliablyapplied the methodsto 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 reliabilityofan expert’switness can bejudgedbased on: • whether the expert’stheory or technique can be (or hasbeen) tested • whether the theory or techniquehasbeensubjectedtopeerreview or publication • the known or potentialerror rate of the theory • whetherthereisgeneralacceptance in the relevantscientific community

  9. Practicaltools A demonstration Project of the American Associationfor the Advancementof Science

  10. Annexto the Civil Procedure Rules (UK)

  11. The debateis open... National ResearchCouncil National Academyof Science

  12. Conclusions • The Italian case reflects the importance and the urgenceofestablishedcriteriafor the selectionofexperts in courtrooms • Suchcriteria do notexist in Italy and, apparently, do notexist in mostCountries • The contributionofscientificbodiesto the establishmntofcriteria and guidelinesisessential • More in general, actions are neededtobringlawcloserto science, and science closertolaw

  13. The responseof science

  14. A thingisnot just becauseitis a law. Butitmustbelawbecauseitis just Charles-Louis de Montesquieu, The SpiritofLaws, 1748

  15. Thank youfor your attention

More Related