Epidemiology and the Law: Reflections on Serving as an Expert Witness Author: David Savitz, PhD For many, perhaps most, epidemiologists, engaging in legal disputes as an expert witness is unappealing. These impressions may be based on past legal decisions that run counter to an informed interpretation of the epidemiologic evidence, an aversion to being drawn into advocacy for fear of damaging one’s reputation as an objective scientist, or a distaste for being tormented by opposing attorneys in depositions or trial cross-examination. None of these are without merit, but there are ways to mitigate the negative aspects and enhance the positive aspects of serving as an epidemiology expert on legal matters. For epidemiologists who are motivated to bring scientific rigor and knowledge to bear on societal decisions, court cases provide perhaps the most direct opportunity to do so. In contrast to the sometimes-meandering pipeline of scientific discoveries influencing public policy or individual decisions, legal disputes are direct and relatively rapid: a decision will be made, epidemiologic evidence is relevant, and providing accurate interpretation of the evidence should lead to a more just outcome. While there are legitimate reasons to question whether legal disputes are the best means of reaching decisions, they are an important aspect of the way society operates. The adversarial nature of the legal system seems counter to an objective, dispassionate assessment of the evidence by informed experts to reach a decision, as is generally the case for expert committees charged with assessing evidence. Attorneys are advocates for their clients, and when they engage
David Savitz, PhD epidemiologists, it is with the belief that the experts will contribute to winning the case. Epidemiologists need to maintain clarity regarding their role (and integrity) as experts and accept that the attorneys who engage them will be seeking ways to use their expertise to the benefit of their client. Maintaining objectivity is critical not just for the reputation of the epidemiology expert but ultimately for the attorney’s client and even for the justice system itself. I have been approached by attorneys who indicate need for an epidemiology expert who will provide the opinion that helps their client, and my routine response is to indicate that I need to review the evidence in order to provide an informed, defensible opinion but until I do so, I don’t know - Witness cont'd on page 6
-5-
