the case
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: The case](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56816675550346895dda0ffd/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
SCIENCE AND LAWThe case of the Italian Supreme Court ruling
Paolo VecchiaFormer Chairman of ICNIRP
![Page 2: The case](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56816675550346895dda0ffd/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
![Page 3: The case](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56816675550346895dda0ffd/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
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
![Page 4: The case](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56816675550346895dda0ffd/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
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”.
![Page 5: The case](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56816675550346895dda0ffd/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
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 (?).”
![Page 6: The case](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56816675550346895dda0ffd/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
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)
![Page 7: The case](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56816675550346895dda0ffd/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Who were the experts?
Court-appointed:Physician, General Medicine
Plaintiff-appointed:Physician, Neurosurgery
Are these profiles enough for qualificationas experts in the case?
Do criteria for such a qualification exist?
![Page 8: The case](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56816675550346895dda0ffd/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Federal Rules of EvidenceU.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
![Page 9: The case](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56816675550346895dda0ffd/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
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
![Page 10: The case](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56816675550346895dda0ffd/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Practical tools
A demonstration Project of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
![Page 11: The case](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56816675550346895dda0ffd/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Annex to theCivil Procedure Rules
(UK)
![Page 12: The case](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56816675550346895dda0ffd/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
National Research Council National Academy of Science
The debate is open...
![Page 13: The case](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56816675550346895dda0ffd/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
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
![Page 14: The case](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56816675550346895dda0ffd/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
![Page 15: The case](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56816675550346895dda0ffd/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
The response of science
![Page 16: The case](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56816675550346895dda0ffd/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
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
![Page 17: The case](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56816675550346895dda0ffd/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Thank you
for your attention