Charles Walter

Legal defenses to the use of data digits to identify fabricated data

I the previous article, we explained how the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) uses “insignificant” digits in research data to catch researchers falsifying or fabricating data. Basically, ORI assumes that certain digits reported in data are not significant to the measurement they purport to represent. Moreover, ORI assumes that such digits occur in falsified or fabricated data will not be selected randomly. It therefore applies the Chi Square test to the “insignificant” digits in questionable data and estimates the probability that the digits were generated randomly. Where bias is found in digits that should be random, the questionable data are further suspect, and the researcher who reported them may be convicted of scientific misconduct. In applying this theory, ORI assumes that any digit to the right of the leading one that is not distributed randomly in the data raises the possibility that the data are falsified. However, any experimental scientist would intuit that the use of significant digits for this purpose is far less probative evidence that data are fabricated than is the use of truly insignificant digits. In what follows, rather than adopt ORI’s terminology, we refer to a left-most digit as the “most significant digit,” the right-most significant digit as the “least significant digit,” the rest of the significant digits (if any) as “significant digits,” and any other digits in a datum as “insignificant digits.”

Engineering and the law. Science in the Supreme Court: round two

Since the United States Supreme Courts 1993 decision in the Daubert case, federal judges have been looking more carefully at the scientific basis of the expert testimony presented in their courtrooms. Medical-device litigation, especially that over the alleged harm caused by breast implants, has been at the center of this rethinking of the role of the court in assessing scientific evidence. Cases that were about to settle for a total of more than

Keeping junk science out of the courtroom

4 billion are now being seen as potentially groundless. One judge in Oregon dismissed a group of breast-implant cases. Finding there was no scientific basis for the plaintiffs claims. Another court, overseeing a large group of cases, has appointed an independent panel of experts to determine if the plaintiffs experts will be allowed to testify. As in the Oregon breast-implant cases, the exclusion of a plaintiffs expert witness often means the court must also dismiss the plaintiffs case. Plaintiffs have appealed these decisions, arguing that since the trial courts exclusion of their experts testimony ends their case, the appeals courts should strictly review the correctness of the trial courts decision. In GE vs. Joiner, decided December 1997, the United States Supreme Court established the proper standard for appellate review of decisions by trial courts to exclude evidence.

When are expert witnesses liable for their malpractice

Junk science gets into the courtroom in the guise of an expert witness who is called by a party to give an opinion about a technical matter on behalf of the party who called the expert. Attorneys take advantage of the fact that judges lack the background, or sometimes the will, to keep junk science out. We propose some new rules, which, if adopted, would help keep junk science out of the courtroom.

Using data digits to identify fabricated data

Expert witness testimony is essential to all legal proceedings that involve technical, medical, professional, or scientific matters. More generally, experts must testify whenever the underlying matters are beyond the common knowledge of lay jurors. As we have written in previous articles, the courts have spent much time and energy determining how to access the proper qualifications for experts. Without an expert, a plaintiff cannot proceed to trial, and a defendant is usually doomed to an adverse jury verdict. Since experts are often a scarce resource that is essential to litigation, many charge substantial fees for their services. If the expert does not do a good job, the party employing the expert will lose the lawsuit as well as be responsible for the experts fees. This article deals with expert witness malpractice. Should the party hiring the expert be entitled to sue the expert for malpractice? Should the party that the expert testifies against be allowed to sue the expert? Conversely, what are the legal risks of being an expert witness?.

Using expert testimony in scientific misconduct cases

In this article we discuss four cases of research misconduct reported by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) in the Federal Register, focusing on how ORI uses digits in data other than the leading digit as evidence that data is fabricated or falsified. In the next article of this series, we examine more closely the probative value of using significant digits in ORIs analysis.

The Supreme Court sets standards for engineering expert testimony.

Considers how the power of the Washington bureaucracy threatens scientists who are singled out for sanctions for alleged scientific misconduct. Even vindication comes at a very steep price. The authors discuss: Health and Human Services jurisdiction (legal constraints; definition of scientific misconduct); using experts to challenge jurisdiction; the politics of investigations. >