Op-Ed | Judges must continue to keep junk science away from jurors | amNewYork

"Judges must exercise their gatekeeping role and keep unreliable claims out of court and away from juries. A consequential case now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will test whether federal judges will continue to fulfill that responsibility by barring junk science and unreliable expert testimony from reaching a jury."

"Rule 702 requires judges to examine an expert's methodology and determine whether the opinion is grounded in sufficient facts or data, rests on reliable principles and methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the facts of the case."

"A 2023 amendment to Rule 702 further clarified that the party offering expert testimony must show that every requirement is satisfied. This avoids forcing jurors to sort through scientific disputes that should have been screened out at the outset."

"As the recently released Junk Science Playbook reveals, research promoting new health risks are often carefully orchestrated by lawyer-backed advocacy groups seeking to manufacture the appearance of scientific consensus."

Public health debates are increasingly influenced by unreliable claims, particularly regarding vaccines and Tylenol. A significant case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will assess judges' commitment to excluding junk science from court. Mass tort lawyers have filed claims linking prenatal acetaminophen exposure to ADHD and autism. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires judges to evaluate expert testimony rigorously, ensuring that only reliable scientific evidence is presented to juries. A recent amendment to this rule emphasizes the need for parties to demonstrate compliance with all requirements for expert testimony.

Read at www.amny.com