Myrl Jeffcoat tore this off the net and went to play for his team
(fussing and fuming and lying all the while) ... Here is some great
information about Milloy and how millions of pooled money created the
Junk Science Disinformation Campaign regarding:

vaccinations
silicone implants
DDT
cell phones
global warming
etc.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010211082334/http://www.webstarmagic.com/wisletter.htm

http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.com

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.html
B

http://web.archive.org/web/20010211082334/http://www.webstarmagic.com/wisletter.htm

 
October 29, 2000

 

UP TO THE MINUTE STOCK QUOTES FOR ALL OF "OUR" MANUFACTURERS

See 'em all, by clicking here

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The following excerpts are all from collected material on TASSC. Thank
you Merry for sending these our way.  The reason for my sending this
material out now, is to remind you it is close to election day, and to
choose wisely those that will lead the country, and possibly follow
agendas that are in our best interests.

None of the following material has been sorted or organized in any
particular way.  I just put it out, to give samplings of what TASSC is
all about.  Obviously geared to promoting "information" as
manufacturers and the corporate giants wishes for the public to
believe.  Likely responsible for the coining of the term, "Junk
Science" which has become a corporate "buzz" word to bend or warp
facts, to meet the needs of corporations to shirk responsibility when
it comes to human harm. . . Myrl

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TASSC

Mickey Edwards (Chairman)
Harvard University
Kennedy School of Government Dr. James Steele
Prof. Emeritus, School of Public Health
University of Texas
Dr. Bruce Ames
Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
University of California Dr. Michael Gough
Director, Science and Risk Studies
Cato Institute
Honorable Clayton Yeutter
Hogan & Hartson Dr. Alice Ottoboni
California Department of Public Health (Retired)
Dr. John D. Graham
Director
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis Dr. Frederick Seitz
President Emeritus
The Rockefeller University

-----

The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) is a not-for-profit
organization advocating the use of sound science in public policy
decision making. Its membership includes scientists, academicians,
former public officials and representatives from business and
industry.

TASSC members believe science that is used to guide public policy
decisions should be based on sound principles ? not on emotions or
beliefs considered by some as politically acceptable. Too often,
public policy decisions that are based on inadequate science impose
enormous economic costs and other hardships on consumers, businesses
and government. Furthermore, these decisions may fail to protect the
public's health and safety.

TASSC's Role Is To:

Design a set of principles to help guide the application and use of
good science in public policy.
Inform public officials, the media and the general public about the
consequences of inappropriate science through focusing attention on
current examples of unsound government research used to guide policy
decisions.
Establish an educational outreach program to communicate the
importance of applying sound scientific standards to public policy
decisions and the costs to society resulting from science that is
manipulated to achieve political objectives.
Anticipate when science should be used to help support public policy
decisions and offer resources to ensure that sound scientific
principles are applied.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION
THREE YEARS OF ACCOMPLISHMENT
A Solid Foundation of Knowledge, Experience
To assure the organization operates on the basis of a firm grounding
in common sense and reason, TASSC established an Advisory Board
including eight noted opinion leaders from the scientific, academic
and policy-making communities. The Board is chaired by former Oklahoma
Congressman Mickey Edwards. Board members include: Dr. Bernadine
Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health, and now
Dean of The Ohio State University Medical School; Dr. Bruce Ames,
professor at the University of California at Berkeley; Dr. John
Graham, director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis; Dr.
Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences;
Michael Fumento, author of Science Under Siege; Dr. Lester Lave,
professor of economics, Carnegie Mellon University; Dr. Alice
Ottoboni, retired toxicologist; and the Honorable Clayton Yeutter,
former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.

Highlighting Responsible, Constructive Uses of Scientific Data
As part of an ongoing effort to call attention to the use of sound
scientific data in the public policy arena, TASSC conducted a
conference in Columbus, Ohio, highlighting the city's innovative
program to respond to and manage regional environmental challenges.
More than 100 participants attended the event, Cooperation -- Not
Confrontation, which focused on Columbus' successful effort to engage
community stakeholders in the local policy making process. The
speakers included national, state and local policy makers and TASSC
Advisory Board members Dr. Fred Seitz and Dr. Bernadine Healy.

Setting the Record Straight on Silicone Breast Implant Issues
TASSC conducted a roundtable meeting on the use of junk science by
lawyers to meet one of our most important aims -- demonstrating the
negative impact the use of junk science can have on important public
policy debates. The round table meeting focused on the use of junk
science by lawyers pressing silicone breast implant litigation. The
coalition brought together 10 experts -- rheumatologists,
immunologists and epidemiologists, among others -- to examine how
TASSC can best educate the public and the media about the lack of
sound science linking silicone breast implants to disease. Following
the round table meeting, TASSC initiated an ambitious media outreach
effort on this issue.

Combating Unfounded Scares
It is often difficult for the public and the news media to get at the
scientific facts. To help, TASSC brought together 10 scientists to
produce a fact sheet, What Scientists Are Saying, in reference to the
book Our Stolen Future. TASSC was concerned that news media coverage
of the book would prompt an unnecessary public health scare. The
statements provided by toxicologists, endocrinologists and others
attracted significant media interest.

Facts, Not Fear
TASSC launched a national Facts, Not Fear campaign to highlight the
worst examples of health-related distortions and distractions each
year, and to award kudos for the best news coverage of sound science.
TASSC also commissioned a study on how the news media cover scientific
issues and granted the following awards: "Media Manipulation Award" to
the Center for Science in the Public Interest Deli Study; "Vindication
of Science Award" to Silicone Breast Implants; "Fabricated Health
Crisis Award" to Norplant; "Potential Exaggerated Scare of 1996 Award"
to Electromagnetic Fields; and "Sound Science in Journalism Award" to
New York Times Reporter Gina Kolata.

Concerns of the Scientific Community
In recent years, scientists have become increasingly concerned about
the manipulation of scientific data in public policy debates. To
highlight the concerns, TASSC commissioned a poll in 1994 of
non-member scientists and medical doctors. According to the results,
62 percent believed public confidence in scientific research has
decreased in the last 10 years, and 83 percent agreed policy makers
use science to achieve their personal policy goals on controversial
issues.

TASSC Speaks Out
As part of the effort to inform the public and the news media, TASSC
scientists and members have written a series of opinion articles that
have been published in newspapers around the country. Each participant
wrote about the risk assessment portion of the regulatory reform
debate that was taking place on Capitol Hill.

Focus on the News Media
During the most critical phase of the debate over regulatory reform,
TASSC commissioned Dr. Robert Entman, professor of communication at
North Carolina State University to look at the way the media was
covering this issue. According to the final report, there was a
three-to-one imbalance in negative assertions about reform. The media
coverage of the Congressional debate over regulatory reform slanted
clearly against the regulatory revisions. Study results were mentioned
by then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole during deliberations of
regulatory reform legislation.

Joining Policy Debates
In June 1994, TASSC called on the Environmental Protection Agency not
to mandate the use of ethanol in reformulated gasoline because the
scientific data do not support such a decision. Joining TASSC Chairman
Garrey Carruthers at a Washington, D.C., news conference was Dr.
Donald Stedman of the University of Denver who agreed that the
scientific evidence does not exist for the EPA to base its mandate for
ethanol on the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Ultimately, the U.S.
Court of Appeals rejected the EPA ruling.

Challenging Junk Science and Special Interest Groups

CSPI -- Food Police Scares
TASSC responded to a report released by the Center for Science in the
Public Interest (CSPI) which said that butter, sausage and eggs are
high in fat. TASSC issued a statement, including a comment by TASSC
scientist Dr. Michael Pariza, director of the Food Research Institute
at the University of Wisconsin, that "at a time when responsible
nutritionists are working to educate the public about the complexities
and importance of balance in our diets, CSPI is trying to make
everything look simplistic and one-sided."

Environmental Working Group -- Pesticide Study
In the summer of 1995, the Environmental Working Group released
studies on the amount of pesticides in baby foods and issued a warning
against drinking tap water. Both demonstrated that organization's
priority to seek publicity, rather than be concerned about the
soundness of their findings, according to TASSC and Dr. Bruce Ames,
professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and director of the
National Institute of Environmental Health Science Center at the
University of California at Berkeley; and Dr. Roy Spalding, director
of the Water Science Laboratory, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Nader's Dirty Dozen
Ralph Nader and the Cancer Prevention Coalition published a book to
coincide with the release of his "Dirty Dozen" list of household
products that contain carcinogenic and other toxic ingredients. TASSC
Chairman Dr. Garrey Carruthers, along with Dr. Bruce Ames, and Dr.
Michael Kamrin, professor at the Institute of Environmental Toxicology
at Michigan State University, noted that the public learned nothing
about preventing cancer and that Nader and his allies hold press
conferences such as these regularly to ride the popularity of many
brand names so they can garner some publicity at the expense of
offering views based on sound science to the public.

Supporting Sound Science

Bovine Somatotropin
Pressure on consumers to boycott dairy products made with
bio-engineered growth hormones is a disservice to the institution of
sound science. That was the message from TASSC Chairman Garrey
Carruthers and three scientists when TASSC spoke out on the BST issue
in early 1994. Joining Dr. Carruthers were Dr. Manfred Kroger,
professor of food science at Penn State University; Dr. Margaret
Maxey, professor of bioethics at the University of Texas at Austin;
and Floy Lilley, charter member of the Advisory Council of the
National Education Forum on Food Safety Issues.

Flavr Savr Tomato
TASSC praised the decision by the Food and Drug Administration and
Calgene to assure that a genetically engineered tomato is safe for
consumers. This was an instance where a corporation went above and
beyond the regulatory guidelines to ensure the safety of its product.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  CONTACT: Steve Milloy
(202) 457-8586
Media Reports Slanted Against Regulatory Reform Efforts, Study Shows
(Washington, DC -- July 7, 1995) Media coverage of the Congressional
debate over environmental regulatory reform slants "clearly against
the regulatory revisions," according to a study released today by The
Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC).

"While some outlets refer in favorable terms to the general idea of
reform, most devote far greater space and time to denouncing the
specific legislation calling for rigorous application of risk and cost
benefit analysis," according to the study, conducted by Dr. Robert M.
Entman, Professor of Communication, North Carolina State University
and Adjunct Professor of Public Policy, University of North Carolina
(Chapel Hill).

"This study demonstrates once again that the media, whether it is
consciously aware of it or not, is portraying important, scientific
issues in the same 'who's up, who's down' play by play style of
reporting that they use in describing political campaigns or football
games. While all stories deserve more balanced treatment, stories
involving science cry for more fair reporting," said Dr. Garrey
Carruthers, Chairman of TASSC, a national organization of scientists,
researchers, academicians and others.

The most striking finding in Dr. Entman's study is the "negative
imbalance in covering the proposed reform legislation." Dr. Entman
said that there was a three-to-one negative imbalance in news stories
about reform. Fully 74 percent of paragraphs that evaluated the
reforms were critical. On editorial pages, criticism reached 87
percent, a seven-to-one negative ratio. Among his other findings:

70 percent of the stories on the commercial television networks
criticized reform.
Weekly magazines surveyed also were 70 percent critical.
Certain key words function to reinforce negative impressions. For
example, the word "lobby" or related words show up 10 times as often
when referring to those supporting reform as those opposing it, even
though both sides are lobbying the Congress.
Headlines, which frame the audience's emotional response to the
content of the story, were often emotional or slanted opposed to the
reform ideas. For example, Time magazine's "Congressional Chain Saw
Massacre" or Newsday's "GOP Frenzy Is Gutting Safety Rules."
Visual images portrayed supporters of reform as enemies of the
environment. For example, scenes of industrial plants with numerous
pipes and tanks; smokestacks spewing smoke; a large bulldozer. Viewers
were repeatedly exposed to "archetypal images of pollution and
danger," the report states, images likely to "stir negative emotions
toward reform."
While analysis of the "why" of this media slant was beyond the scope
of Dr. Entman's study, the report says, "reasons go beyond the
standard interpretation of liberal bias. They include the media's
tendency to oversimplify; journalists' lack of training in policy
analysis; and the commercial incentives that news organizations
interpret as requiring appeals to emotion over cognition."

Dr. Carruthers said TASSC commissioned the study because "we want to
offer information on how scientific issues are communicated to the
public as another means of ensuring that only sound science is used in
making public policy decisions."

"Too often, legislation or regulations are the result of political
decisions, where the science does not back up the action. One way to
better understand this phenomena is to understand how the media
portray scientific issues. TASSC is committed to pointing out not only
when unsound science is used to make a decision, but also to point out
the media's important role in the public's understanding of science
and research," Carruthers said.

To conduct his study, Dr. Entman examined 29 major newspapers across
the country,

Time, Newsweek and the three broadcast network evening news programs.
Stories reviewed included those published or broadcast between
November 1, 1994 and May 11, 1995.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

News Flash!!!
HEALTH SCARE ALERT: Consequences of Irresponsible Coverage Could be
Dire

WASHINGTON, D.C. (February 26, 1998) ? The Advancement of Sound
Science Coalition (TASSC) strongly urges the media to use caution and
provide balance in coverage of the latest study on calcium channel
blockers. The Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD)
Trial was slated to appear in next week's New England Journal of
Medicine, but was released today by the Journal after ABC News broke
the embargo.


PUBLIC POLICY GROUP SAYS BUREAUCRACY PUTS PUBLIC HEALTH AT RISK

WASHINGTON, D.C. ? Recently announced government plans to dramatically
increase the funding for the National Institutes of Health hold
promise only if those funds are directed toward research on our most
pressing health needs. Congress should initiate a complete review of
the existing health research budget before new funds are committed.


MEDICAL JOURNAL EDITORS COURAGEOUS IN CONTROVERSIAL OBESITY EDITORIAL

WASHINGTON, D.C. ? As a result of their scientifically sound, but
controversial editorial saying that too much emphasis is placed on
obesity as a public health problem, New England Journal of Medicine
editors Jerome Kassirer and Marcia Angell have come under heavy
criticism by some in the public health community.


HONG KONG FLU SCARE SHOWS PUBLIC HEALTH PRIORITIES MISPLACED

WASHINGTON, D.C. ? In a typical year, influenza is a public health
problem of about the same magnitude as AIDS. During epidemic years,
influenza can be a much greater problem. Yet funding for AIDS research
is about 25 times greater than funding for influenza research.


500 PHYSICIANS, SCIENTISTS OPPOSE CLIMATE TREATY

WASHINGTON, D.C. ? The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
and the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF) announced on
December 3, 1997 that more than 500 physicians and scientists have
signed an open letter to world leaders opposing the climate change
treaty now being negotiated in Kyoto, Japan.


STUDY FINDS MEDICAL REPORTING ERRORS

CHICAGO, IL ? "A just released study ? "The Media and Public Health
Scares" ? has found that media coverage of recent public health
stories often fails to include important and necessary facts in order
for readers to make informed decisions," said Garrey Carruthers,
chairman of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Steve Milloy
(202) 467-8586

Dangerous Medicine: How Science is Used and Abused
Orlando, Florida - November 11, 1997 - Junk science can kill. That was
the message today at a news conference held by The Advancement of
Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) during the annual meeting of the
American Heart Association (AHA). "Health and medical news that is
based on inadequate or incomplete science can have a devastating
effect on public health and safety," said TASSC Executive Director
Steve Milloy.

"A tragic example comes from Omaha, Nebraska where a 78-year old man
suffered a heart attack when he abruptly stopped taking his prescribed
hypertension medication after hearing frightening news reports about a
study showing that his blood pressure drugs may be causing more harm
than good," said Milloy. The patient's physician, Dr. Richard Collins,
joined Steve Milloy at the news conference saying that there was a
direct cause and effect relationship between his patient's heart
attack and the fact that he had gone off his medication.

The patient was reacting to a study that was released two years ago at
this very meeting of the AHA about calcium channel blockers. "While
meetings like this can provide valuable information on medical issues,
they also tend to be fertile ground for public health scares:
Scientists are eager to generate interest in their studies and the
media is eager to generate health news. The Omaha incident is a vivid
example of how dangerous this dynamic can be," Milloy warned.

Since the initial anti-CCB study emerged at the 1995 AHA meeting, junk
science has surrounded the CCB issue. According to Dr. Brant Mittler,
a practicing cardiologist from San Antonio, Texas, CCB critics "have
released a series of inconclusive studies linking the drugs, which are
widely used for the treatment of hypertension, to everything from
cancer and gastrointestinal bleeding to Parkinson's disease and
suicide."

"These claims are based on weak epidemiologic research; one study
looked at a group of CCB users totaling literally a handful.
Nonetheless, they receive media attention, unnecessarily stoking the
fears of the millions of patients who take them. Meanwhile, good
scientific studies like Systolic Hypertension in Europe (SYST-EUR), a
long-term, placebo-controlled, clinical trial that was presented
August 27 at the European Society of Cardiology meeting has
essentially vindicated CCBs. This type of study is the gold standard
of scientific research, and yet there has been virtually no media
coverage of the SYST-EUR results," said Mittler.

To help prevent unnecessary health scares, Milloy suggested that the
media use a scrutinizing eye when covering health and medical news. He
offered four questions reporters should ask when determining whether a
study constitutes good science:

What is the relative risk? Be leery of an epidemiologic study where
the relative risk is less than 2 (an increase in risk of 100 percent).
Are the results statistically significant? Is the sample of the
affected population large enough to produce meaningful results.
Are there other explanations for the study results? Studies must
adequately rule out other possible explanations for the increase in
risk.
What is the larger picture? A single study is rarely conclusive.
Reporters should wait for additional research before generating scary
headlines.
TASSC is a Washington, D.C.-based, not-for-profit advocacy group with
more than 900 members, including 375 scientists, academicians and
former policymakers. TASSC receives funding from individuals, small
businesses, foundations and corporations. TASSC's goal is to expose
the misuse and misrepresentation of scientific information by focusing
on specific examples of junk science. The coalition has engaged in the
public debates over a broad range of health, medical and science
issues and acting as a facilitator between the scientific community
and the media.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: danimal@ewg.org (Dan Barry) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:14:40
-0500 Subject: ALERT: Global Warming "Sweepstakes" ALERT In what it
claims to be a first of its kind, The Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition (TASSC) is hosting a "Global Warming Sweepstakes" through
its web page on the internet. CLEAR staff have compiled several items
regarding this gimmick, including the TASSC news release, the text
from the "sweepstakes" page on the TASSC web site, and a fact sheet on
TASSC. Try your luck! You may be the lucky winner.... ******* TASSC
Press Release ******* Headline: TASSC Sponsors Global Warming
Sweepstakes Wire Service: PR (PR Newswire) Date: Wed, Nov 12, 1997
TASSC Sponsors Global Warming Sweepstakes WASHINGTON, Nov. 12
/PRNewswire/ -- The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
announced today the Global Warming Sweepstakes. The winner will
receive One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) in cash. The purpose of the
contest is to encourage public participation in the debate over
whether President Clinton should sign a treaty on global warming this
December in Kyoto, Japan. To enter the Global Warming Sweepstakes, a
contestant must visit the Junk Science Home Page
(http://www.junkscience.com) and, according to contest rules, send an
e-mail to President Clinton expressing an opinion whether the U.S.
should sign a treaty limiting emissions of so-called "greenhouse
gases." To be eligible for the Sweepstakes, opinions must be either
'for' or 'against' the treaty. It does not matter which position is
expressed; only that an opinion is transmitted. All U.S. residents are
eligible. The contest is void where prohibited. For those who have
questions about the global warming issue, information is provided at
the Junk Science Home Page. At the conclusion of the Kyoto meeting,
the contest will close. The winner of the One Thousand Dollars will
then be picked at random from all those who submitted eligible
opinions to President Clinton. The winner will receive a check from
TASSC. Asked about the contest, TASSC executive director Steven Milloy
said, "This contest was made possible by the Internet and is the first
of its kind. We hope to stimulate public education about the global
warming treaty and public participation in the national and
international debates." TASSC is a not-for-profit organization of
scientists, former public policy officials and other individuals,
foundations and businesses interested in the use of sound science in
public policy. TASSC is located at 1155 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,
Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20036, and on the World Wide Web at
http://www.tassc.org. SOURCE The Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition CONTACT: Steven Milloy of TASSC, 202-467-8586 or
milloy@cais.com/ ******* Sweepstakes Web Page Text ******* A recent
addition to the Junk Science Home Page concerning global warming and
the upcoming Kyoto meeting announces TASSC's "Global Warming
Sweepstakes" (www.junkscience.com/contest.html). The copy reads as
follows: Citizenship Pays! Win One Thousand Dollars Cash ($1,000.00)
To enter, simply click here to send an e-mail to President Clinton
expressing your opinion about whether he should sign a global warming
treaty in Kyoto, Japan, this December. At the conclusion of the Kyoto
meeting, each person who e-mailed an opinion to the White House
according to contest rules, will be entered into a random drawing for
One Thousand Dollars -- $1,000.00 -- in cash. The Junkman will draw
the winner who will be notified immediately by e-mail. The Prize will
be awarded by The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). It
does not matter whether you are 'for' or 'against' the treaty, you
enter the contest simply by expressing your opinion in an e-mail to
President Clinton. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to form an
opinion on the global warming treaty. If you need information on
global warming and the treaty click here. So there are no excuses for
not participating. If you can read and think, you can have your own
opinion. As an example, here's the Junkman's e- mail to President
Clinton. === Dear Mr. President: I urge you NOT to sign a global
warming treaty this December in Kyoto, Japan. Available science does
not show that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are affecting
global climate. A treaty that would require reductions in manmade
greenhouse gas emissions would cause energy prices to rise and would
be, in effect, an energy tax. A new energy tax would harm the U.S.
economy. And since the well-being of our public health and environment
depend on a prosperous economy, the global warming treaty would be
counter-productive and cause unnecessary harm across our standard of
living. Mr. President, just say "No" in Kyoto! Sincerely, Steven J.
Milloy, Washington, D.C. === Your e-mail does not need to be so
detailed. All you really need is a sentence expressing your opinion!
So click here to send your own e-mail to the President now and enter
the Global Warming Sweepstakes drawing for One Thousand Dollars in
cash! KEEP IN MIND THAT: if the President signs a global warming
treaty, you'll need the cash to pay the new energy tax; otherwise,
you'll have One Thousand Dollars to spend however you want! Material
presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author. *******
TASSC Facts (from CLEAR) ******* The Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition (TASSC) -- Run out of the Washington, DC, offices of the
public relations firm APCO and Associates, this "sound science"
coalition is supported by hundreds of corporations, including 3M,
Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Motors, Occidental
Petroleum, Philip Morris, Proctor & Gamble and W.R. Grace. Its
objective is to act as a speakers bureau to deliver the corporate
message that environmental public policy is not currently based on
"sound science," and to counter excessive regulations that are based
on what it considers "junk" science. _O'Dywer's PR Services_ reports
that TASSC is "leading the charge against what it views as the unholy
alliance between environmentalists and the media" (Feb. 1996). TASSC
claims to have 250 to 300 scientists as active members (_Tulsa World_,
April 25, 1996). TASSC was created in 1993 to promote "sound science"
in policy decision making. TASSC is chaired by former New Mexico
governor Garrey Caruthers, and claims a membership of over 400
corporations. In addition to many corporate representatives, TASSC's
extensive advisory board contains well known "science skeptics" S.
Fred Singer, Bruce Ames, Hugh Ellsaesser, Dr. Patrick Michaels,
Michael Sanera, and Hugn Ellsaesser. Former APCO and Associates Vice
President Thomas Hockaday, the original spokesman for TASSC, is now
employed by Direct Impact, a firm that specializes in manufacturing
astroturf opposition to regulations through the use of sophisticated
telemarketing campaigns. Direct Impact's client list includes the
American Petroleum Institute, a member of the Executive Committee of
the Air Quality Standards Coalition (the lead organization fighting
the EPA's stringent air pollution standards earlier this year), and a
supporter of several anti-global warming treaty organizations,
including the Global Climate Information Project, the Alliance for a
Responsible Atmospheric Policy, the Global Climate Coalition and the
Coalition for Vehicle Choice. Direct Impact recently announced a
merger with Burson- Marsteller, the p.r. firm that houses the
Foundation for Clean Air Progress, another anti-environmental
corporate front group. Steven Milloy, recently hired as executive
director of TASSC, is a self styled "junk science" critic who
previously launched the Junk Science Page through the Environmental
Policy Analysis Network (EPAN), a group he started in 1996. Milloy is
also a lobbyist for the EOP Group, a DC-based lobbying firm that
represents the American Crop Protection Association, the Chlorine
Chemistry Council, Edison Electric Institute, among others. Under
Milloy's personal listing of groups he represents through the EOP
Group in 1996 were Fort Howard Corp., the International Food Additives
Association, and Monsanto. According to the most recent edition of
_Washington Representatives_, Milloy's client list has grown to
include the National Mining Association, among others. ===end fact
sheet=== For more information on the anti-environmental lobby and any
of the organizations, corporations and individuals discussed above,
contact CLEAR at clear@ewg.org, or visit our web pages at www.ewg.org.
============================================================= Daniel
Barry, Director CLEAR Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and
Research 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20009
tel. 202-667-6982 = fax 202-232-2592 = e-mail: clear@ewg.org
============================================================= CLEAR
provides environmental advocates and concerned citizens with
information to understand and counter misinformation about
environmental policy and science and the impacts of environmental law
on the economy and private property.  

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Laurie Safran
1-800-369-6608
TASSC Attacks Hysteria Surrounding Baby Food
(Washington, DC -- July 26, 1995) A report issued today by the
Environmental Working Group unnecessarily scares the public and
parents of infants and toddlers by proclaiming that there are
pesticides in more than half the name-brand baby foods that were
tested, while at the same time stating that "baby foods are the safest
foods you can find."

"While it is true that store bought jars of baby food do contain
pesticides, research has shown that these are naturally occuring and
appear at levels that pose no health threat to infants," according to
Dr. Bruce Ames, Director of the National Institute of Environmental
Health Science Center at the University of California, Berkeley, and a
science advisor to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC).

After the press conference, Dr. Garrey Carruthers, Chairman of TASSC
said, "it is appalling that this public interest group would take such
a cynical attitude about the health and safety of our most vulnerable
citizens by holding a news conference, which was not open to the
public, to fan the fears of parents in America."

TASSC is a nationial, broad-based, non-profit watchdog group of
scientists and representatives from universities, independent
organizations and industry, which advocates the use of sound science
in the public policy arena. It is committed to monitoring all public
policy related science to ensure that a sound science and valid
peer-review process are used.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



PESTICIDES IN BABY FOOD PRESS CONFERENCE - Environmental Working Group

July 26, 1995

Introductions by Mark Childress of the Environmental Working Group

Richard Wiles, Vice President, Research EWG

Study in 3 cities of 8 kinds of baby food tested for pesticides; found
16 pesticides in those products that are classified as probable human
carcinogens.

A full assessment is needed of a child's surroundings (food, water,
home). A lesson was learned from the Lead example that sensitivities
vary between adults and children.

Dr. Ralph Rigert, University of South Carolina, past Chairman of the
Environmental Health Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics

Principles of Pediatrics -

Do no harm - don't expose a child until it is safe - however in the
US, we continue to expose children before we have enough knowledge of
the risks to kids.
Pediatricians expect risk assessment and accountability by the
government. They want to be able to say with no qualifications that
parents should not be concerned about hazards of pesticides in fruits
and vegetables.
Senator Edward Kennedy

Concerns about pesticides and children were first expressed in the NAS
study in 1987, and then again in 1993. Americans assume food in
grocery stores are safe. No one has ever said to him that our baby
food is too safe. The nation should beware of chemicals, carcinogens
in baby food supply and cautious in ensuring that it will be safe in
the future.

The Dole Regulatory Reform Bill: instead of saying food is safe, it is
saying it may not be very safe, or it may not be too safe.

The recommendations in the Dole Bill are in the food industry's
interest, and the legislation would pose health and safety risks to
our foods. We should work with the NAS, FDA and hold hearings to make
sure we're going to have the safest food possible.

If there is a role for the federal government, it is to bring in the
best in science and research to determine safety.

We should strengthen the protections that are in place - not like the
regulatory provision in the Dole Bill.

Carolyn Brickey, Executive Director, National Campaign for Pesticide
Policy Reform, and former staff member of the Agriculture Committee

EWG did a poll -

3 of 4 American say there should not be pesticides in food
4 of 5 say pesticides should be eliminated
Farmers can and should eliminate pesticides. Congress should prod the
food industry to push for alternatives.

VIDEO - Dr. Philip Landrigan - author of the 1993 NAS study, Chairman
of the Department of Community Medicine, Mt. Sinai Hospital, NY

There is no single residue at significantly high levels from consuming
these foods.

However, they do contain compounds known to cause cancer, and
suspected of causing cancer and are known toxics to the nervous
system.

The 1988-1993 report concluded:

Kids in the US are repeatedly exposed to pesticides
Kids are more heavily exposed because they eat more foods and
different foods
Kids are more vulnerable - they are growing and developing and less
able to break down and excrete chemicals from pesticides
Recommendation: laws be strengthened.

Reason for the Release Now: to urge the American people to take steps
to prevent Congress from weakening the preventive steps that have been
taken for children's diets; parents should contact baby food companies
and urge that they use little or no pesticides in their foods; contact
Senators and Congressmen and urge them to take steps to protect the
American kids/the future of our country/the true values of the
American family. (Kennedy)

Q/A: What is the message to the parents: (Rigert) Continue to feed
children a broad range of foods, do not make your own foods - it may
be more hazardous; continue to feed them lots of fruits and
vegetables. We could help parents improve the quality of the foods by
having stronger regulations. BABY FOODS ARE THE SAFEST FOODS YOU CAN
FIND.

(Wiles) Parents should call baby food manufacturers.

How will regulatory reform affect food standards: (Kennedy) It used to
read "negligible or insignificant foreseeable risk." It now reads -
"reasonable certainty of no harm.".

The current supply is safe, sound policy says to have hearings and the
ability to make changes and adjustments.

Apple juice - kids consume 21x the amount of adults x 10x the amount
of carcinogens

Bananas - kids consume 7x the amount of adults x 10x the amount of
carcinogens

How do they respond to the Beechnut spokesperson: The standards for
pesticides are flawed, it is set for adults, on based on adult
consumption - even though the companies say they fall way below the
standards.

Food companies have never been required, as they do w/drugs, to show
that these pesticides are shown to be safe for kids. All of the
standard setting looks at 1 pesticide at a time - not the additive
effects of numerous pesticides.

Kennedy - it is wrong not to take steps for additional kinds of
protections.

Wiles - "We're just guessing about claims of safety w/the 10x figure."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  CONTACT: Steve Milloy
(202) 457-8586

(Note to Media Outlets: TASSC Advisory Members, Dr. Manfred Kroger,
Dr. Margaret Maxey and Floy Lilley are available for one-on-one
interviews, or as expert spokespersons on the issue of bovine growth
hormones, as is TASSC Chairman Garrey Carruthers. Biographies on each
are available. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition is a
national, broad-based, non-profit organization concerned with the
manipulation of science to meet preconceived agendas. TASSC believes
sound science has been used by the government to reach its conclusions
on bovine growth hormones and that the Pure Food Campaign is
misleading the public by ignoring the results of sound science.)

Pure Food Campaign Viewed as Disservice to Sound Science
TASSC Attacks Critics of Bovine Somatotropin (BST)
(Washington, DC -- February 9, 1994) Pressure on consumers to boycott
dairy products made with new bio-engineered growth hormones is a
disservice to the institution of sound science, according to leaders
of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC).

"Boycotting BST might make activists feel better about themselves,"
said TASSC Chairman Garrey Carruthers, former Governor of New Mexico
and a former professor of agricultural economics. "But turning their
backs to the product and pouring perfectly good milk down the drain
helps no one. America is the world leader in biotechnology because of
our strong belief in valid, peer-reviewed scientific methodology. We
know that biotechnology can produce healthier products and help cure
dreaded diseases. We can't afford to turn away from these remarkable
advancements, which are backed by sound science."

BST is a protein hormone composed of amino acids, similar to the
hormone insulin. Use of BST is expected to significantly boost milk
production in dairy cows. After ten years of review, the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (F.D.A.) has approved the use of genetically
engineered hormones that increase the productivity of dairy cows. In
addition to the F.D.A., the National Institutes of Health and the
American Medical Association have found the product to be safe for
people and for cows.

According to The New York Times (February 4, 1994), the F.D.A. has
said that milk produced with BST is indistinguishable from milk that
is not. A report issued last month by representatives from the White
House and seven federal agencies, whose goal was to determine the
drugs' impact on U.S. consumers, the dairy industry and the economy,
found that "there is no evidence that BST poses a health threat to
humans or animals."

"BST is absolutely safe," said Dr. Manfred Kroger, professor of food
science at Penn State University; he has a Ph.D. in dairy science.
"Hypothetically, if we followed Mr. Rifkin's logic on this issue, we
would still be riding in horse and buggies."

According to The New York Times (February 4, 1994), the Pure Food
Campaign has "18 full-time workers and was spending roughly $100,000
per month." Mr. Rifkin has vowed to stop agriculture biotechnology by
first halting the use of BST.

"By pouring perfectly good milk down the drain, the Pure Food Campaign
is being wasteful and is ignoring the results of sound science," said
Dr. Margaret Maxey, a professor of bioethics with the University of
Texas at Austin. "The government has studied this and has thorough
data from a ten year period. Where are Mr. Rifkin's figures? The
simple truth is that science does not support his claims."

Critics of BST claim that use of the product may lead to increased use
of antibiotics to treat symptoms in dairy cows. Yet government
standards for the use of these antibiotics, which were not criticized
by activist groups prior to the introduction of BST, remain as
stringent now as they were before the introduction of BST.

Genetic engineering is being tested for possible applications to help
cure children of cystic fibrosis, to create living skin for burn
victims and to cure diseases such as HIV and cancer. Agricultural
applications are similarly promising. Genetic engineering may increase
a plant's pest resistance, the shelf life of products and fight plant
diseases. Bio-engineered tomatoes, for example, can be left to ripen
red on the vine, instead of the current system that picks tomatoes
green and gasses them before reaching consumers.

"If we follow Mr. Rifkin's lead on BST, we're ignoring the first major
biotechnology advancements for world agriculture," said Floy Lilley, a
charter member of the Advisory Council of the National Education Forum
on Food Safety Issues and guest lecturer at the University of Texas at
Austin. "Opposition to BST is a case of fantasy over fact. We can not
afford to let fear mongers sidestep the evidence of sound science."

"This is a prime example of a special interest group using its own
political agenda to drive policy. It has nothing to do with the valid
information that sound science has provided," said TASSC's Chairman
Carruthers.

TASSC is a grassroots-based, not-for-profit watchdog group of
scientists and representatives from universities, independent
organizations and industry, which advocates the use of sound science
in the public policy arena. It is committed to monitoring all public
policy related science to ensure that a sound science and valid
peer-review process are used.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

MEDIA ADVISORY CONTACT: Steve Milloy
(800) 369-6608

Calcium Channel Blocker Study Inconclusive
The study published in today's issue of Cancer: "Use of Calcium
Channel Blockers and Breast Carcinoma Risk in Postmenopausal Women" is
a limited epidemiologic study that has yet to be confirmed by further
scientific research.

The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) strongly encourages
reporters covering this story to seek input on the study and the
broader calcium channel blocker debate from credible scientists and
physicians.

Please contact TASSC if you would like names and contact information
for cardiologists and other experts on calcium channel blockers and
sound science.

TASSC is a Washington, D.C.-based, not-for-profit group supporting the
use of sound science in public policy. TASSC has more than 900
members, including 375 scientists, academicians and former
policymakers. TASSC receives funding from individuals, small
businesses, foundations and corporations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



STUDY FINDS MEDICAL REPORTING ERRORS
CHICAGO, IL ? "A just released study ? "The Media and Public Health
Scares" ? has found that media coverage of recent public health
stories often fails to include important and necessary facts in order
for readers to make informed decisions," said Garrey Carruthers,
chairman of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC).

Written by Dr. Robert Entman, Chairman of the Department of
Communication at North Carolina State University, the study examined
media coverage of the silicone breast implant and heart drug calcium
channel blocker public health stories. According to Entman, "With both
these products, the reporting tended to play up any claim of risk and
play down any reassurance of safety, despite the fact that the
majority of medical and scientific studies supported safety."

Entman's study found, for example, that of eight critical facts
related to the calcium channel blocker story, the average news report
only included 2.9. Other key findings include:

For calcium channel blockers, the coverage was actually more accurate
in 1995 but deteriorated in 1996, often because reports did not repeat
initial warning or caveats;
Headlines were a significant problem. Some headlines read, "Blood
Pressure Drug is a Heart Attack Risk," going far beyond any study
findings;
Coverage of the silicone breast implant controversy has improved since
the early 1990's, but significant factual omissions remain; and
Nearly 80% of silicone breast implant stories emphasize unfounded
allegations which have been disproved by scientific and medical
research.
"Imagine seeing a headline, 'Blood Pressure Drug Safe.' To many
editors that wouldn't seem to be news," said Entman. "Bias toward the
negative seems built into the way medical reporting happens."

Joining Carruthers and Entman in releasing the TASSC commissioned
study were cardiologist Dr. Brant Mittler, and neuropathologist and
television commentator Dr. Peter Ostrow.

In addressing the scientific side of the calcium channel blocker
controversy, Dr. Mittler noted that many patients were unnecessarily
scared and said, "As more and more studies come out, especially the
recent clinical trial SYST-EUR, the medical community gains more
confidence that initial reports were anomalies; however, the media
rarely reports the positive findings."

Mittler also cautioned that it is not just reporters who need to be
careful, but researchers too. He said, "Researchers today are driven
by competitive pressures to try and make news with their studies,
which means they may release preliminary findings to the mainstream
media before the study is ever peer-reviewed. In my opinion that is
irresponsible. When the calcium channel blocker scare hit, literally
thousands of patients reacted in ways which could have easily harmed
their health even killed them ? that is the seriousness of the issue."

Dr. Ostrow, speaking of the breast implant controversy, also warned
that sometimes less than credible studies find their way into the
press by being presented at medical conventions where papers are
accepted without first being reviewed by other scientists. "Its a
disservice to the public. The press attends these conferences, so a
researcher who does shoddy work on a controversial topic may obtain
media exposure that gives his claim the appearance of legitimacy. The
report will never be published in a reputable medical journal, but the
public hears about it and believes it, so the damage has already been
done."

The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition is a national,
not-for-profit coalition of scientists and representatives from
universities, independent organizations, industry and the public
sector which advocates the use of sound science in public policy
making.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Chairman Garrey Carruthers
Governor of New Mexico, 1987-1990
Government Experience

Governor New Mexico, 1987-90
Assistant Secretary of the Interior, 1981-84
Acting Director, New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute,
1976-78
Special Assistant to the Secretary of Agriculture, 1974-75
White House Fellow, 1974-75
Education

B.A. in Agriculture, New Mexico State University, 1964
M.S. in Agriculture Economics, New Mexico University, 1965
Ph.D. in Economics, Iowa State University, 1968
Academic/Teaching Experience

Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural
Business, New Mexico State University, 1979-81 and 1984-87.
Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and
Agricultural Business, New Mexico State University, 1968-74 and
1978-79
National, State and Community Service

Named one of the Top Ten Governors for Education in the United States
by Fortune Magazine in their special education issue. Spring 1990.
Distinguished Alumnus Award, Iowa State University. June 9, 1990.
Chairman, Education Commission of the State (ECS), July 1989 to July
1990. National education advocacy and policy associates.
Chairman, ECS Minority Task Force, July 1989 to Present. Restarted
Border Governor's Association 1987. Association had been inactive
since 1984 and includes four governors from the United States and six
from Mexico.
Served on many committees while Governor, and served as leading
Governor on health and education committees.
Selected Publication and Papers

Carruthers, Garrey E. and Maki, Wilbur, "A Decision Oriented Resource
Management Model, "Regional Science Perspectives, a journal of the
Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, July 1970.
Carruthers, Garrey E., and Urquhart, N. Scott, "Some Methodological
Considerations for Rural Community Services Research, "Proceedings,
National Workshop on Community Services, presented to the National
Workshop on Problems of Research on Delivery of Community Services,
Lincoln, Nebraska, December 13-16, 1971.
Carruthers, Garrey E., Mitchell, Keith, and Williams, Thomas, An
Interindustry Model of the Economy of North-Central New Mexico, New
Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 237, July 1972,
48 pp.
Erickson, Eugene C., Carruthers, Garrey E., and Oberle, Wayne,
"Delivery of Community Services to Rural Areas," Proceedings, Workshop
on Current Rural Development Research, sponsored by Northeast Center
for Rural Development, July 1971.
Mertes, James, Carruthers, Garrey, E., and Renner, Kathryn, Regional
Environmental Management in West Texas and Eastern New Mexico -
Resource Problems and Resource Opportunities - An Interdisciplinary
Study, preliminary draft presented to Eisenhower Consortium.
Carruthers, Garrey E., An Assessment of Section 208 Planning:
Procedures, Problems and Possibilities, New Mexico State University,
Cooperative Extension Service, Circular 400 N-7, July 1978.
Carruthers, Garrey E., "Planning to Control Non-point Water Pollution:
An Agricultural Management Dilemma." New Mexico State University
Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Article 689, published in
Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Appraisers, 1979.
Personal

Born August 29, 1939. Married, with 3 children


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  CONTACT: Steve Milloy
(202) 457-8586
Silicone Breast Implants Not a Significant Risk Factor
Danish Study Examined Association Between Implants and Connective
Tissue Disease
Washington, D.C. -- July 18, 1997 -- A new long-term study of more
than 2,500 Danish women with breast implants published in the July
issue of the Annals of Plastic Surgery adds to the growing body of
epidemiological evidence that implants are not a cause of
connective-tissue disease in women.

Equally as important, the study indicates that breast surgery of any
kind may contribute to an increase in symptoms that some doctors
allied with the plaintiffs' bar claim are unique to women with breast
implants. This study indicates that they are not unique to implanted
women.

"This study should be reassuring to women with silicone breast
implants who have been needlessly alarmed by the controversy
surrounding this issue," said Garrey Carruthers, Chairman of TASSC.

The study, which was conducted by the Danish Cancer Society, included
four separate groups of women -- 1,135 who received breast implants
for cosmetic purposes, 1,435 who received implants for breast
reconstruction -- and two non-implanted control groups totaling 11,023
women who had either breast reduction or breast cancer surgery.

The study found no statistically "significant excess of definite
connective-tissue disease" in any of the four groups, either for any
of five individual connective-tissue disease such as rheumatoid
arthritis, scleroderma or lupus, nor for all the five diseases
combined. Seventy percent (7 out of 10) of the implanted women and 64
percent (16 out of 25) of the non-implanted women with connective
tissue disease had been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, the most
common connective tissue disease affecting women.

Because the study only included women who received implants between
1977 and 1992, before the controversy over breast implants reached
epidemic proportions, and also because diagnoses were obtained through
the national Dutch Central Hospital Discharge register, the study
authors conclude that the "possibility of reporting bias due to the
publicity surround breast implants is unlikely in our register-based
study in Denmark."

The results of this study are consistent with more than a dozen
epidemiological studies on breast implants that have been conducted in
recent years by such prestigious institutions as Harvard Medical
School, the Mayo Clinic, the University of Michigan and numerous
others.

The study did find, however, a statistically significant excess in all
four groups of "Muscular rheumatism, fibrositis, and myalgia," which
the study referred to as "ill-defined rheumatic conditions." These are
the types of vague complaints that have suggested as constituting a
new or atypical disease unique to breast implants. However, the Danish
study concludes that "a likely explanation of this finding would be
that the excess of muscular symptoms is related to breast surgery per
se, rather than to any systematic effect of silicone breast implants.

A recent study published in the Journal of American Medical
Association (JAMA) found that women who receive breast implants for
cosmetic purposes had higher rates of certain lifestyle risk factors ?
such as smoking, drinking and number of sexual partners -- that could
contribute to an increased risk of disease in those women.

"This study adds breast surgery itself to this list of confounding
factors that must be controlled for in evaluating the risk -- if any
-- of breast implants," said Garrey Carruthers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

(Cite as: 1997 WL 764563 (U.S.))

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., Petitioners,
v.
Robert K. JOINER et ux.

No. 96-188.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Oct. 14, 1997.

Decided Dec. 15, 1997.
Syllabus [FN*]

 

FN* The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but
has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of
the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S.
321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
*1 After he was diagnosed with small-cell lung cancer, respondent
Joiner sued in Georgia state court, alleging, inter alia, that his
disease was "promoted" by his workplace exposure to chemical "PCBs"
and derivative "furans" and "dioxins" that were manufactured by, or
present in materials manufactured by, petitioners. Petitioners removed
the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment. Joiner
responded with the depositions of expert witnesses, who testified that
PCBs, furans, and dioxins can promote cancer, and opined that Joiner'
exposure to those chemicals was likely responsible for his cancer. The
District Court ruled that there was a genuine issue of material fact
as to whether Joiner had been exposed to PCBs, but granted summary
judgment for petitioners because (1) there was no genuine issue as to
whether he had been exposed to furans and dioxins, and (2) his
experts' testimony had failed to show that there was a link between
exposure to PCBs and small-cell lung cancer and was therefore
inadmissible because it did not rise above "subjective belief or
unsupported speculation." In reversing, the Eleventh Circuit applied
"a particularly stringent standard of review" to hold that the
District Court had erred in excluding the expert testimony.

Held:

1. Abuse of discretion-the standard ordinarily applicable to review of
evidentiary rulings-is the proper standard by which to review a
district court's decision to admit or exclude expert scientific
evidence. Contrary to the Eleventh Circuit's suggestion, Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125
L.Ed.2d 469, did not somehow alter this general rule in the context of
a district court's decision to exclude scientific evidence. Daubert
did not address the appellate review standard for evidentiary rulings
at all, but did indicate that, while the Federal Rules of Evidence
allow district courts to admit a somewhat broader range of scientific
testimony than did pre-existing law, they leave in place the trial
judge's "gatekeeper" role of screening such evidence to ensure that it
is not only relevant, but reliable. Id., at 589. A court of appeals
applying "abuse of discretion" review to such rulings may not
categorically distinguish between rulings allowing expert testimony
and rulings which disallow it. Compare Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey,
488 U.S. 153, 172, 109 S.Ct. 439, 102 L.Ed.2d 445, with United States
v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 54, 105 S.Ct. 465, 83 L.Ed.2d 450. This Court
rejects Joiner's argument that because the granting of summary
judgment in this case was "outcome determinative," it should have been
subjected to a more searching standard of review. On a summary
judgment motion, disputed issues of fact are resolved against the
moving party-here, petitioners. But the question of admissibility of
expert testimony is not such an issue of fact, and is reviewable under
the abuse of discretion standard. In applying an overly "stringent"
standard, the Eleventh Circuit failed to give the trial court the
deference that is the hallmark of abuse of discretion review. Pp. 4-5.
*2 2. A proper application of the correct standard of review indicates
that the District Court did not err in excluding the expert testimony
at issue. The animal studies cited by respondent's experts were so
dissimilar to the facts presented here-i.e., the studies involved
infant mice that developed alveologenic adenomas after highly
concentrated, massive doses of PCBs were injected directly into their
peritoneums or stomachs, whereas Joiner was an adult human whose
small-cell carcinomas allegedly resulted from exposure on a much
smaller scale-that it was not an abuse of discretion for the District
Court to have rejected the experts' reliance on those studies. Nor did
the court abuse its discretion in concluding that the four
epidemiological studies on which Joiner relied were not a sufficient
basis for the experts' opinions, since the authors of two of those
studies ultimately were unwilling to suggest a link between increases
in lung cancer and PCB exposure among the workers they examined, the
third study involved exposure to a particular type of mineral oil not
necessarily relevant here, and the fourth involved exposure to
numerous potential carcinogens in addition to PCBs. Nothing in either
Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to
admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the
ipse dixit of the expert. Pp. 6-9.

3. These conclusions, however, do not dispose of the entire case. The
Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's conclusion that Joiner
had not been exposed to furans and dioxins. Because petitioners did
not challenge that determination in their certiorari petition, the
question whether exposure to furans and dioxins contributed to
Joiner's cancer is still open. Pp. 9-10.

78 F. 3d 524, reversed and remanded.

REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with
respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court with respect
to Part III, in which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS,
GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring
opinion. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and
dissenting in part.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

For U.S. Supreme Court Briefs See:

1997 WL 304727 (Pet.Brief)

1997 WL 436250 (Resp.Brief)

1997 WL 536304 (Reply.Brief)

1997 WL 304740 (Amicus.Brief)

1997 WL 304743 (Amicus.Brief)

1997 WL 304754 (Amicus.Brief)

1997 WL 304759 (Amicus.Brief)

1997 WL 304765 (Amicus.Brief)

1997 WL 304772 (Amicus.Brief)

1997 WL 304776 (Amicus.Brief)

1997 WL 311460 (Amicus.Brief)

1997 WL 311475 (Amicus.Brief)

1997 WL 321154 (Amicus.Brief)

1997 WL 433325 (Amicus.Brief)

1997 WL 433329 (Amicus.Brief)

1997 WL 433333 (Amicus.Brief)

1997 WL 458813 (Amicus.Brief)

For Transcript of Oral Argument See:

1997 WL 634566 (U.S.Oral.Arg.)

Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari in this case to determine what standard an
appellate court should apply in reviewing a trial court's decision to
admit or exclude expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469
(1993). We hold that abuse of discretion is the appropriate standard.
We apply this standard and conclude that the District Court in this
case did not abuse its discretion when it excluded certain proffered
expert testimony.

 

I

Respondent Robert Joiner began work as an electrician in the Water &
Light Department of Thomasville, Georgia (City) in 1973. This job
required him to work with and around the City's electrical
transformers, which used a mineral- based dielectric fluid as a
coolant. Joiner often had to stick his hands and arms into the fluid
to make repairs. The fluid would sometimes splash onto him,
occasionally getting into his eyes and mouth. In 1983 the City
discovered that the fluid in some of the transformers was contaminated
with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs are widely considered to
be hazardous to human health. Congress, with limited exceptions,
banned the production and sale of PCBs in 1978. See 90 Stat.2020, 15
U.S.C. ? 2605(e)(2)(A).

*3 Joiner was diagnosed with small cell lung cancer in 1991. He [FN1]
sued petitioners in Georgia state court the following year. Petitioner
Monsanto manufactured PCBs from 1935 to 1977; petitioners General
Electric and Westinghouse Electric manufactured transformers and
dielectric fluid. In his complaint Joiner linked his development of
cancer to his exposure to PCBs and their derivatives, polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (furans) and polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (dioxins).
Joiner had been a smoker for approximately eight years, his parents
had both been smokers, and there was a history of lung cancer in his
family. He was thus perhaps already at a heightened risk of developing
lung cancer eventually. The suit alleged that his exposure to PCBs
"promoted" his cancer; had it not been for his exposure to these
substances, his cancer would not have developed for many years, if at
all.

 

FN1. Joiner's wife was also a plaintiff in the suit and is a
respondent here. For convenience, we refer to respondent in the
singular.
Petitioners removed the case to federal court. Once there, they moved
for summary judgment. They contended that (1) there was no evidence
that Joiner suffered significant exposure to PCBs, furans, or dioxins,
and (2) there was no admissible scientific evidence that PCBs promoted
Joiner's cancer. Joiner responded that there were numerous disputed
factual issues that required resolution by a jury. He relied largely
on the testimony of expert witnesses. In depositions, his experts had
testified that PCBs alone can promote cancer and that furans and
dioxins can also promote cancer. They opined that since Joiner had
been exposed to PCBs, furans, and dioxins, such exposure was likely
responsible for Joiner's cancer.

The District Court ruled that there was a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether Joiner had been exposed to PCBs. But it
nevertheless granted summary judgment for petitioners because (1)
there was no genuine issue as to whether Joiner had been exposed to
furans and dioxins, and (2) the testimony of Joiner's experts had
failed to show that there was a link between exposure to PCBs and
small cell lung cancer. The court believed that the testimony of
respondent's experts to the contrary did not rise above "subjective
belief or unsupported speculation." 864 F.Supp. 1310, 1329
(N.D.Ga.1994). Their testimony was therefore inadmissible.

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. 78 F.3d 524
(1996). It held that "[b]ecause the Federal Rules of Evidence
governing expert testimony display a preference for admissibility, we
apply a particularly stringent standard of review to the trial judge's
exclusion of expert testimony." Id. at 529. Applying that standard,
the Court of Appeals held that the District Court had erred in
excluding the testimony of Joiner's expert witnesses. The District
Court had made two fundamental errors. First, it excluded the experts'
testimony because it "drew different conclusions from the research
than did each of the experts." The Court of Appeals opined that a
district court should limit its role to determining the "legal
reliability of proffered expert testimony, leaving the jury to decide
the correctness of competing expert opinions." Id. at 533. Second, the
District Court had held that there was no genuine issue of material
fact as to whether Joiner had been exposed to furans and dioxins. This
was also incorrect, said the Court of Appeals, because testimony in
the record supported the proposition that there had been such
exposure.

*4 We granted petitioners' petition for a writ of certiorari, 520 U.S.
---- (1997), and we now reverse.

 

II

Petitioners challenge the standard applied by the Court of Appeals in
reviewing the District Court's decision to exclude respondent's
experts' proffered testimony. They argue that that court should have
applied traditional "abuse of discretion" review. Respondent agrees
that abuse of discretion is the correct standard of review. He
contends, however, that the Court of Appeals applied an abuse of
discretion standard in this case. As he reads it, the phrase
"particularly stringent" announced no new standard of review. It was
simply an acknowledgement that an appellate court can and will devote
more resources to analyzing district court decisions that are
dispositive of the entire litigation. All evidentiary decisions are
reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. He argues, however,
that it is perfectly reasonable for appellate courts to give
particular attention to those decisions that are
outcome-determinative.

We have held that abuse of discretion is the proper standard of review
of a district court's evidentiary rulings. Old Chief v. United States,
519 U.S. ----, ---- n. 1 (1997) (slip op., at 1-2, n.1), United States
v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 54, 105 S.Ct. 465, 83 L.Ed.2d 450 (1984).
Indeed, our cases on the subject go back as far as Spring Co. v.
Edgar, 99 U.S. 645, 658, 25 L.Ed. 487 (1879) where we said that "cases
arise where it is very much a matter of discretion with the court
whether to receive or exclude the evidence; but the appellate court
will not reverse in such a case, unless the ruling is manifestly
erroneous." The Court of Appeals suggested that Daubert somehow
altered this general rule in the context of a district court's
decision to exclude scientific evidence. But Daubert did not address
the standard of appellate review for evidentiary rulings at all. It
did hold that the "austere" Frye standard of "general acceptance" had
not been carried over into the Federal Rules of Evidence. But the
opinion also said:
"That the Frye test was displaced by the Rules of Evidence does not
mean, however, that the Rules themselves place no limits on the
admissibility of purportedly scientific evidence. Nor is the trial
judge disabled from screening such evidence. To the contrary, under
the Rules the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific
testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable."
509 U.S., at 589 (footnote omitted).

Thus, while the Federal Rules of Evidence allow district courts to
admit a somewhat broader range of scientific testimony than would have
been admissible under Frye, they leave in place the "gatekeeper" role
of the trial judge in screening such evidence. A court of appeals
applying "abuse of discretion" review to such rulings may not
categorically distinguish between rulings allowing expert testimony
and rulings which disallow it. Compare Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey,
488 U.S. 153, 172, 109 S.Ct. 439, 102 L.Ed.2d 445 (1988) (applying
abuse of discretion review to a lower court's decision to exclude
evidence) with United States v. Abel, supra at 54 (applying abuse of
discretion review to a lower court's decision to admit evidence). We
likewise reject respondent's argument that because the granting of
summary judgment in this case was "outcome determinative," it should
have been subjected to a more searching standard of review. On a
motion for summary judgment, disputed issues of fact are resolved
against the moving party-here, petitioners. But the question of
admissibility of expert testimony is not such an issue of fact, and is
reviewable under the abuse of discretion standard.

*5 We hold that the Court of Appeals erred in its review of the
exclusion of Joiner's experts' testimony. In applying an overly
"stringent" review to that ruling, it failed to give the trial court
the deference that is the hallmark of abuse of discretion review. See,
e.g., Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. ----, ---- (1996)(slip op., at
14-15).

 

III

We believe that a proper application of the correct standard of review
here indicates that the District Court did not abuse its discretion.
Joiner's theory of liability was that his exposure to PCBs and their
derivatives "promoted" his development of small cell lung cancer. In
support of that theory he proffered the deposition testimony of expert
witnesses. Dr. Arnold Schecter testified that he believed it "more
likely than not that Mr. Joiner's lung cancer was causally linked to
cigarette smoking and PCB exposure." App. at 107. Dr. Daniel
Teitelbaum testified that Joiner's "lung cancer was caused by or
contributed to in a significant degree by the materials with which he
worked." Id. at 140.

Petitioners contended that the statements of Joiner's experts
regarding causation were nothing more than speculation. Petitioners
criticized the testimony of the experts in that it was "not supported
by epidemiological studies ... [and was] based exclusively on isolated
studies of laboratory animals." Joiner responded by claiming that his
experts had identified "relevant animal studies which support their
opinions." He also directed the court's attention to four
epidemiological studies [FN2] on which his experts had relied.

 

FN2. Epidemiological studies examine the pattern of disease in human
populations.
The District Court agreed with petitioners that the animal studies on
which respondent's experts relied did not support his contention that
exposure to PCBs had contributed to his cancer. The studies involved
infant mice that had developed cancer after being exposed to PCBs. The
infant mice in the studies had had massive doses of PCBs injected
directly into their peritoneums [FN3] or stomachs. Joiner was an adult
human being whose alleged exposure to PCBs was far less than the
exposure in the animal studies. The PCBs were injected into the mice
in a highly concentrated form. The fluid with which Joiner had come
into contact generally had a much smaller PCB concentration of between
0-500 parts per million. The cancer that these mice developed was
alveologenic adenomas; Joiner had developed small-cell carcinomas. No
study demonstrated that adult mice developed cancer after being
exposed to PCBs. One of the experts admitted that no study had
demonstrated that PCBs lead to cancer in any other species.

 

FN3. The peritoneum is the lining of the abdominal cavity.
Respondent failed to reply to this criticism. Rather than explaining
how and why the experts could have extrapolated their opinions from
these seemingly far-removed animal studies, respondent chose "to
proceed as if the only issue [was] whether animal studies can ever be
a proper foundation for an expert's opinion." Joiner, 864 F.Supp. at
1324. Of course, whether animal studies can ever be a proper
foundation for an expert's opinion was not the issue. The issue was
whether these experts' opinions were sufficiently supported by the
animal studies on which they purported to rely. The studies were so
dissimilar to the facts presented in this litigation that it was not
an abuse of discretion for the District Court to have rejected the
experts' reliance on them.

*6 The District Court also concluded that the four epidemiological
studies on which respondent relied were not a sufficient basis for the
experts' opinions. The first such study involved workers at an Italian
capacitor [FN4] plant who had been exposed to PCBs. Bertazzi, Riboldi,
Pesatori, Radice, & Zocchetti, Cancer Mortality of Capacitor
Manufacturing Workers, 11 American Journal of Industrial Medicine 165
(1987). The authors noted that lung cancer deaths among ex-employees
at the plant were higher than might have been expected, but concluded
that "there were apparently no grounds for associating lung cancer
deaths (although increased above expectations) and exposure in the
plant." Id. at 172. Given that Bertazzi et al. were unwilling to say
that PCB exposure had caused cancer among the workers they examined,
their study did not support the experts' conclusion that Joiner's
exposure to PCBs caused his cancer.

 

FN4. A capacitor is an electrical component that stores an electric
charge.
The second study followed employees who had worked at Monsanto's PCB
production plant. J. Zack & D. Munsch, Mortality of PCB Workers at the
Monsanto Plant in Sauget, Illinois (Dec. 14, 1979)(unpublished
report), 3 Rec., Doc. No. 11. The authors of this study found that the
incidence of lung cancer deaths among these workers was somewhat
higher than would ordinarily be expected. The increase, however, was
not statistically significant and the authors of the study did not
suggest a link between the increase in lung cancer deaths and the
exposure to PCBs.

The third and fourth studies were likewise of no help. The third
involved workers at a Norwegian cable manufacturing company who had
been exposed to mineral oil. Ronneberg, Andersen, Skyberg, Mortality
and Incidence of Cancer Among Oil-Exposed Workers in a Norwegian Cable
Manufacturing Company, 45 British Journal of Industrial Medicine 595
(1988). A statistically significant increase in lung cancer deaths had
been observed in these workers. The study, however, (1) made no
mention of PCBs and (2) was expressly limited to the type of mineral
oil involved in that study, and thus did not support these experts'
opinions. The fourth and final study involved a PCB-exposed group in
Japan that had seen a statistically significant increase in lung
cancer deaths. Kuratsune, Nakamura, Ikeda, & Hirohata, Analysis of
Deaths Seen Among Patients with Yusho-A Preliminary Report, 16
Chemosphere, Nos. 8/9, 2085 (1987). The subjects of this study,
however, had been exposed to numerous potential carcinogens, including
toxic rice oil that they had ingested.

Respondent points to Daubert 's language that the "focus, of course,
must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions
that they generate." 509 U.S., at 595. He claims that because the
District Court's disagreement was with the conclusion that the experts
drew from the studies, the District Court committed legal error and
was properly reversed by the Court of Appeals. But conclusions and
methodology are not entirely distinct from one another. Trained
experts commonly extrapolate from existing data. But nothing in either
Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to
admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the
ipse dixit of the expert. A court may conclude that there is simply
too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion
proffered. See Turpin v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 959 F.2d
1349, 1360 (C.A.6), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 826, 113 S.Ct. 84, 121
L.Ed.2d 47 (1992). That is what the District Court did here, and we
hold that it did not abuse its discretion in so doing.

*7 We hold, therefore, that abuse of discretion is the proper standard
by which to review a district court's decision to admit or exclude
scientific evidence. We further hold that, because it was within the
District Court's discretion to conclude that the studies upon which
the experts relied were not sufficient, whether individually or in
combination, to support their conclusions that Joiner's exposure to
PCBs contributed to his cancer, the District Court did not abuse its
discretion in excluding their testimony. These conclusions, however,
do not dispose of this entire case.

Respondent's original contention was that his exposure to PCBs,
furans, and dioxins contributed to his cancer. The District Court
ruled that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
Joiner had been exposed to PCBs, but concluded that there was no
genuine issue as to whether he had been exposed to furans and dioxins.
The District Court accordingly never explicitly considered if there
was admissible evidence on the question whether Joiner's alleged
exposure to furans and dioxins contributed to his cancer. The Court of
Appeals reversed the District Court's conclusion that there had been
no exposure to furans and dioxins. Petitioners did not challenge this
determination in their petition to this Court. Whether Joiner was
exposed to furans and dioxins, and whether if there was such exposure,
the opinions of Joiner's experts would then be admissible, remain open
questions. We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals
and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice BREYER, concurring.

The Court's opinion, which I join, emphasizes Daubert 's statement
that a trial judge, acting as "gatekeeper," must " 'ensure that any
and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only
relevant, but reliable.' " Ante, at 5 (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d
469 (1993)). This requirement will sometimes ask judges to make subtle
and sophisticated determinations about scientific methodology and its
relation to the conclusions an expert witness seeks to
offer-particularly when a case arises in an area where the science
itself is tentative or uncertain, or where testimony about general
risk levels in human beings or animals is offered to prove individual
causation. Yet, as amici have pointed out, judges are not scientists
and do not have the scientific training that can facilitate the making
of such decisions. See, e.g., Brief for Trial Lawyers for Public
Justice as Amicus Curiae 15; Brief for The New England Journal of
Medicine et al. as Amici Curiae 2 ("Judges ... are generally not
trained scientists ").

Of course, neither the difficulty of the task nor any comparative lack
of expertise can excuse the judge from exercising the "gatekeeper"
duties that the Federal Rules impose-determining, for example, whether
particular expert testimony is reliable and "will assist the trier of
fact," Fed. Rule Evid. 702, or whether the "probative value" of
testimony is substantially outweighed by risks of prejudice, confusion
or waste of time. Fed. Rule Evid. 403. To the contrary, when law and
science intersect, those duties often must be exercised with special
care.

*8 Today's toxic tort case provides an example. The plaintiff in
today's case says that a chemical substance caused, or promoted, his
lung cancer. His concern, and that of others, about the causes of
cancer is understandable, for cancer kills over one in five Americans.
See U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, National Center for
Health Statistics, Health United States 1996-97 and Injury Chartbook
117 (1997) (23.3% of all deaths in 1995). Moreover, scientific
evidence implicates some chemicals as potential causes of some
cancers. See, e.g., U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public
Health Service, National Toxicology Program, 1 Seventh Annual Report
on Carcinogens, pp. v-vi (1994). Yet modern life, including good
health as well as economic well-being, depends upon the use of
artificial or manufactured substances, such as chemicals. And it may,
therefore, prove particularly important to see that judges fulfill
their Daubert gatekeeping function, so that they help assure that the
powerful engine of tort liability, which can generate strong financial
incentives to reduce, or to eliminate, production, points towards the
right substances and does not destroy the wrong ones. It is, thus,
essential in this science-related area that the courts administer the
Federal Rules of Evidence in order to achieve the "end[s]" that the
Rules themselves set forth, not only so that proceedings may be
"justly determined," but also so "that the truth may be ascertained."
Fed. Rule Evid. 102.

I therefore want specially to note that, as cases presenting
significant science-related issues have increased in number, see
Judicial Conference of the United States, Report of the Federal Courts
Study Committee 97 (Apr. 2, 1990) ("Economic, statistical,
technological, and natural and social scientific data are becoming
increasingly important in both routine and complex litigation"),
judges have increasingly found in the Rules of Evidence and Civil
Procedure ways to help them overcome the inherent difficulty of making
determinations about complicated scientific or otherwise technical
evidence. Among these techniques are an increased use of Rule 16's
pretrial conference authority to narrow the scientific issues in
dispute, pretrial hearings where potential experts are subject to
examination by the court, and the appointment of special masters and
specially trained law clerks. See J. Cecil & T. Willging, Court-
Appointed Experts: Defining the Role of Experts Appointed Under
Federal Rule of Evidence 706, pp. 83-88 (1993); J. Weinstein,
Individual Justice in Mass Tort Litigation 107-110 (1995); cf. Kaysen,
In Memoriam: Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr., 100 Harv.L.Rev. 713, 713-715
(1987) (discussing a judge's use of an economist as a law clerk in
United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 110 F.Supp. 295
(D.Mass.1953), aff'd, 347 U.S. 521, 74 S.Ct. 699, 98 L.Ed. 910
(1954)).

*9 In the present case, the New England Journal of Medicine has filed
an amici brief "in support of neither petitioners nor respondents" in
which the Journal writes:
"[A] judge could better fulfill this gatekeeper function if he or she
had help from scientists. Judges should be strongly encouraged to make
greater use of their inherent authority ... to appoint experts ....
Reputable experts could be recommended to courts by established
scientific organizations, such as the National Academy of Sciences or
the American Association for the Advancement of Science."
Brief for The New England Journal of Medicine 18-19; cf. Fed. Rule
Evid. 706 (court may "on its own motion or on the motion of any party"
appoint an expert to serve on behalf of the court, and this expert may
be selected as "agreed upon by the parties" or chosen by the court);
see also Weinstein, supra, at 116 (a court should sometimes "go beyond
the experts proffered by the parties" and "utilize its powers to
appoint independent experts under Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence"). Given this kind of offer of cooperative effort, from the
scientific to the legal community, and given the various
Rules-authorized methods for facilitating the courts' task, it seems
to me that Daubert 's gatekeeping requirement will not prove
inordinately difficult to implement; and that it will help secure the
basic objectives of the Federal Rules of Evidence; which are, to
repeat, the ascertainment of truth and the just determination of
proceedings. Fed. Rule Evid. 102.

Justice STEVENS, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The question that we granted certiorari to decide is whether the Court
of Appeals applied the correct standard of review. That question is
fully answered in Parts I and II of the Court's opinion. Part III
answers the quite different question whether the District Court
properly held that the testimony of plaintiff's expert witnesses was
inadmissible. Because I am not sure that the parties have adequately
briefed that question, or that the Court has adequately explained why
the Court of Appeals' disposition was erroneous, I do not join Part
III. Moreover, because a proper answer to that question requires a
study of the record that can be performed more efficiently by the
Court of Appeals than by the nine members of this Court, I would
remand the case to that court for application of the proper standard
of review.

One aspect of the record will illustrate my concern. As the Court of
Appeals pointed out, Joiner's experts relied on "the studies of at
least thirteen different researchers, and referred to several reports
of the World Health Organization that address the question of whether
PCBs cause cancer." 78 F.3d 524, 533 (CA11 1996). Only one of those
studies is in the record, and only six of them were discussed in the
District Court opinion. Whether a fair appraisal of either the
methodology or the conclusions of Joiner's experts can be made on the
basis of such an incomplete record is a question that I do not feel
prepared to answer.

*10 It does seem clear, however, that the Court has not adequately
explained why its holding is consistent with Federal Rule of Evidence
702, [FN1] as interpreted in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). [FN2] In general, scientific testimony that
is both relevant and reliable must be admitted and testimony that is
irrelevant or unreliable must be excluded. Id., at 597. In this case,
the District Court relied on both grounds for exclusion.

 

FN1. Rule 702 states: "If scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or
to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify
thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."
 

FN2. The specific question on which the Court granted certiorari in
Daubert was whether the rule of Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46,
293 F. 1013 (1923), remained valid after the enactment of the Federal
Rules of Evidence, but the Court went beyond that issue and set forth
alternative requirements for admissibility in place of the Frye test.
Even though the Daubert test was announced in dicta, see 509 U.S., at
598-601 (REHNQUIST, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part),
we should not simply ignore its analysis in reviewing the District
Court's rulings.
The relevance ruling was straightforward. The District Court correctly
reasoned that an expert opinion that exposure to PCBs, "furans" and
"dioxins" together may cause lung cancer would be irrelevant unless
the plaintiff had been exposed to those substances. Having already
found that there was no evidence of exposure to furans and dioxins,
864 F.Supp. 1310, 1318-1319 (ND Ga. 1994), it necessarily followed
that this expert opinion testimony was inadmissible. Correctly
applying Daubert, the District Court explained that the experts'
testimony "manifestly does not fit the facts of this case, and is
therefore inadmissible." 864 F.Supp. at 1322. Of course, if the
evidence raised a genuine issue of fact on the question of Joiner's
exposure to furans and dioxins-as the Court of Appeals held that it
did-then this basis for the ruling on admissibility was erroneous, but
not because the district judge either abused her discretion or
misapplied the law. [FN3]

 

FN3. Petitioners do not challenge the Court of Appeals'
straightforward review of the District Court's summary judgment ruling
on exposure to furans and dioxins. As today's opinion indicate, ante,
at 10, it remains an open question on remand whether the District
Court should admit expert testimony that PCBs, furans and dioxins
together promoted Joiner's cancer.
The reliability ruling was more complex and arguably is not faithful
to the statement in Daubert that "[t]he focus, of course, must be
solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they
generate." 509 U.S., at 595. Joiner's experts used a "weight of the
evidence" methodology to assess whether Joiner's exposure to
transformer fluids promoted his lung cancer. [FN4] They did not
suggest that any one study provided adequate support for their
conclusions, but instead relied on all the studies taken together
(along with their interviews of Joiner and their review of his medical
records). The District Court, however, examined the studies one by one
and concluded that none was sufficient to show a link between PCBs and
lung cancer. 864 F.Supp., at 1324-1326. The focus of the opinion was
on the separate studies and the conclusions of the experts, not on the
experts' methodology. Id., at 1322 ("Defendants ... persuade the court
that Plaintiffs' expert testimony would not be admissible ... by
attacking the conclusions that Plaintiffs' experts draw from the
studies they cite").

 

FN4. Dr. Daniel Teitelbaum elaborated on that approach in his
deposition testimony: "[A]s a toxicologist when I look at a study, I
am going to require that that study meet the general criteria for
methodology and statistical analysis, but that when all of that data
is collected and you ask me as a patient, Doctor, have I got a risk of
getting cancer from this?' That those studies don't answer the
question, that I have to put them all together in my mind and look at
them in relation to everything I know about the substance and
everything I know about the exposure and come to a conclusion. I think
when I say, 'To a reasonable medical probability as a medical
toxicologist, this substance was a contributing cause,' ... to his
cancer, that that is a valid conclusion based on the totality of the
evidence presented to me. And I think that that is an appropriate
thing for a toxicologist to do, and it has been the basis of diagnosis
for several hundred years, anyway." Supp.App. to Brief for Respondents
19.
Unlike the District Court, the Court of Appeals expressly decided that
a "weight of the evidence" methodology was scientifically acceptable.
[FN5] To this extent, the Court of Appeals' opinion is persuasive. It
is not intrinsically "unscientific" for experienced professionals to
arrive at a conclusion by weighing all available scientific
evidence-this is not the sort of "junk science" with which Daubert was
concerned. [FN6] After all, as Joiner points out, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) uses the same methodology to assess risks,
albeit using a somewhat different threshold than that required in a
trial. Brief for Respondents 40-41 (quoting EPA, Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment, 51 Fed. Reg. 33992, 33996 (1986)).
Petitioners' own experts used the same scientific approach as well.
[FN7] And using this methodology, it would seem that an expert could
reasonably have concluded that the study of workers at an Italian
capacitor plant, coupled with data from Monsanto's study and other
studies, raises an inference that PCBs promote lung cancer. [FN8]

 

FN5. The court explained: "Opinions of any kind are derived from
individual pieces of evidence, each of which by itself might not be
conclusive, but when viewed in their entirety are the building blocks
of a perfectly reasonable conclusion, one reliable enough to be
submitted to a jury along with the tests and criticisms
cross-examination and contrary evidence would supply." 78 F.3d 524,
532 (CA11 1996).
 

FN6. An example of "junk science" that should be excluded under
Daubert as too unreliable would be the testimony of a phrenologist who
would purport to prove a defendant's future dangerousness based on the
contours of the defendant's skull.
 

FN7. See, e.g., Deposition of Dr. William Charles Bailey, Supp. App.
to Brief for Respondents 56 ("I've just reviewed a lot of literature
and come to some conclusions....").
 

FN8. The Italian capacitor plant study found that workers exposed to
PCBs had a higher-than-expected rate of lung cancer death, though "the
numbers were small [and] the value of the risk estimate was not
statistically significant." 864 F.Supp. 1310, 1324 (ND Ga. 1994). The
Monsanto study also found a correlation between PCB exposure and lung
cancer death, but the results were not statistically significant. Id.,
at 1325. Moreover, it should be noted that under Georgia law, which
applies in this diversity suit, Joiner need only show that his
exposure to PCBs "promoted" his lung cancer, not that it was the sole
cause of his cancer. Brief for Respondents 7, n. 16 (quoting Brief for
Appellants in No. 94-9131 (CA 11), pp. 7-10).
*11 The Court of Appeals' discussion of admissibility is faithful to
the dictum in Daubert that the reliability inquiry must focus on
methodology, not conclusions. Thus, even though I fully agree with
both the District Court's and this Court's explanation of why each of
the studies on which the experts relied was by itself unpersuasive, a
critical question remains unanswered: when qualified experts have
reached relevant conclusions on the basis of an acceptable
methodology, why are their opinions inadmissible?

Daubert quite clearly forbids trial judges from assessing the validity
or strength of an expert's scientific conclusions, which is a matter
for the jury. [FN9] Because I am persuaded that the difference between
methodology and conclusions is just as categorical as the distinction
between means and ends, I do not think the statement that "conclusions
and methodology are not entirely distinct from one another," ante, at
9, is either accurate or helps us answer the difficult admissibility
question presented by this record.

 

FN9. The Court stated in Daubert: "Vigorous cross-examination,
presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the
burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking
shaky but admissible evidence.... Additionally, in the event the trial
court concludes that the scintilla of evidence presented supporting a
position is insufficient to allow a reasonable juror to conclude that
the position more likely than not is true, the court remains free to
direct a judgment, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 50(a), and likewise to grant
summary judgment, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56.... These conventional
devices, rather than wholesale exclusion under an uncompromising
general acceptance test, are the appropriate safeguards where the
basis of scientific testimony meets the standards of Rule 702." 509
U.S., at 596.
In any event, it bears emphasis that the Court has not held that it
would have been an abuse of discretion to admit the expert testimony.
The very point of today's holding is that the abuse of discretion
standard of review applies whether the district judge has excluded or
admitted evidence. Ante, at 5. And nothing in either Daubert or the
Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district judge to reject an
expert's conclusions and keep them from the jury when they fit the
facts of the case and are based on reliable scientific methodology.

Accordingly, while I join Parts I and II of the Court's opinion, I do
not concur in the judgment or in Part III of its opinion.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What do you get when you cross a "schlemiel". . .

What do you get when you cross a "schlemiel" (the yiddish term for
"foolish person" or "simpleton") with the American news media? What
else?! Schle-Media! Below are journalists who are either
intellectually bankrupt (e.g., have been duped by junk science) or
morally bankrupt (e.g., use junk science to promote political agendas
to an unwitting public). I hazard to guess which journalists fit which
category. You make your own call.

Bruce Henderson, The Charlotte Observer (11/17/97). On November 16,
1997, Bruce's interview with Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory about EPA's
"proposed" clean air standards was published. But the "proposed"
standards were finalized last July.

John J. Fialka, The Wall Street Journal (11/17/97). In his article
titled Energy Researchers Focus on Carbon Dioxide Disposal, John
writes that carbon dioxide can be a killer, pointing to an instance
when "a huge, invisible bubble of carbon dioxide seeped out of a
volcanic lake in Cameroon and flowed down a mountain, suffocating some
1,700 people." While true, what does this have to do with the rest of
his article which is about how global warming hysteria has Department
of Energy researchers studying how carbon dioxide can be disposed so
it doesn't build-up in the atmosphere? Was John suggesting that,
unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, carbon dioxide will
suffocate the rest of us?

Lawrence K. Altman, The New York Times (11/14/97). In his article
Heart Checks Urged for Users of Diet Pills, Lawrence says that "Use of
[fen-phen] was linked in an earlier study to heart valve damage, and
preliminary evidence from five surveys indicates that about 30 percent
of those who used the drugs had heart valve abnormalities..." But if
Lawrence had been diligent about his reporting he wouldn't have
forgotten to mention more recent surveys which have cast doubt on the
FDA's action against fen-phen--surveys that report rates of heart
valve damage among fen-phen users not that different from the general
population.

William J. Broad, The New York Times (9/8/97). In his article Saturn
Missions's Use of Plutonium Fuel Provokes Warnings of Danger, William
writes about the October 6, 1997 launch of the Saturn-bound Cassini
spacecraft. The spacecraft's use of plutonium as a power source has
the knee-jerk anti-nuke nuts up in arms. Ostensibly Cassini foes are
concerned that an accident during Cassini's launch, its orbit around
Earth for a booster rocket firing, or its scheduled August 1999 swing
past Earth could cause a plutonium release that could kill or injure
as many as 200,000 people. Click here for William's article. But
William errs in failing to question whether plutonium is as dangerous
as the anti-nukes say it is. Click here for some perspective on
plutonium.

Sam Howe Verhovek, The New York Times (9/7/97). In his article Racial
Tensions in Suit Slowing Drive for 'Environmental Justice', Sam writes
about residents of Kennedy Heights (Houston, Texas) who are suing
Chevron for illnesses allegedly caused by oil sludge that seeped into
their water supply. Apparently, their homes were built on top of oil
pits abandoned 30 years ago by Gulf Oil. Because the homes were
marketed originally to blacks, the case is seen as a major test case
for the concept of "environmental justice" -- an unsubstantiated
theory that racial minorities are disproportionately subject to
pollution hazards.

In any event, Sam writes "And while Kennedy heights might ultimately
take its place on the nation's roll of toxic horrors, with Love Canal
in Niagra Falls, N.Y., and Times Beach, Mo...." Sam should know that
no adverse health effects were ever linked (scientifically, that is)
to chemicals at Love Canal or Times Beach. Yes, Love Canal and Times
Beach were horrors, but not for the reason Sam thinks. Love Canal
prompted passage of the disastrous Superfund law (high costs, few
cleanups). Times Beach prompted EPA to waste more than $200 million of
taxpayer money in a needless buyout/cleanup of the entire town.

John J. Fialka, The Wall Street Journal (8/26/97). In his article
titled Gore Faces Cool Response to Issue of Global Warming, John
labels carbon dioxide a "pollutant." Perhaps John would have us place
pollution control devices on animals (including John) who emit carbon
dioxide during respiration or on organic material as it decays. Of
course this may be a problem for plants which require carbon dioxide
for photosynthesis. But why sweat the details, right John?

Bette Hileman, Chemical and Engineering News (8/25/97). In her
article titled Hormone Disrupter Research Expands, Bette says
"Endocrine disrupters are chemicals that mimic or otherwise interfere
with the activity of natural hormones. Some of the known endocrine
disrupters are some types of pesticides and plastic. Often they
interfere with estrogen, but they can disrupt other hormones as well."
Excuse me Bette (and I'm apologize for picking on you two weeks in a
row), BUT endocrine disruption is a mere THEORY, not a FACT. And of
course, Bette forgot to mention the retraction of the Tulane endocrine
disruption research, hardly a trivial omission.

Bette Hileman, Chemical and Engineering News (8/18/97). In her
article titled Fossil Fuels in a Greenhouse World, Bette starts off
"If the world's governments eventually decide to stabilize the
concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, a huge reduction
in the missions of carbon dioxide will be required." But since Bette
presumes to write about the climate change issue she should know some
basics -- like the fact that about 98 percent of greenhouse gases are
natural and not manmade. It follows that it will be kind of hard
(impossible, actually) for the "world's governments" to stabilize the
atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases when such a small
percentage is manmade.

William K. Stevens, New York Times (8/8/97). In his article titled
"Industries Revisit Global Warming" (Aug. 5), Stevens parroted the
nonsense that British Petroleum (BP), the world's third largest oil
company, broke ranks with other oil companies on the climate change
issue because BP believes there is "enough scientific evidence to
warrant concern about whether... the burning of fossil fuels... is
changing the Earth's climate."

In reality, the implementation of climate change emissions limits
would be HUGE competitive advantage for BP (and the rest of the
European Union and Japan) over U.S. companies. Emissions limits would
adversely impact U.S. businesses more than European buineses,
resulting in a net gain for the Europeans and Japanese. For example,
there is relatively more nuclear power use among EU nations and Japan;
so relatively less coal and oil are burned. Lower greenhouse gas
emissions from electric power generation would permit more greenhouse
gas emissions from gasoline combustion. Whose gasoline? BP's! Sure BP
believes in climate change. But not because of science, just
economics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Global Warming "Sweepstakes" read the sponsors and throw up

From: danimal@ewg.org (Dan Barry) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:14:40
-0500 Subject: ALERT: Global Warming "Sweepstakes" ALERT In what it
claims to be a first of its kind, The Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition (TASSC) is hosting a "Global Warming Sweepstakes" through
its web page on the internet. CLEAR staff have compiled several items
regarding this gimmick, including the TASSC news release, the text
from the "sweepstakes" page on the TASSC web site, and a fact sheet on
TASSC. Try your luck! You may be the lucky winner.... ******* TASSC
Press Release ******* Headline: TASSC Sponsors Global Warming
Sweepstakes Wire Service: PR (PR Newswire) Date: Wed, Nov 12, 1997
TASSC Sponsors Global Warming Sweepstakes WASHINGTON, Nov. 12
/PRNewswire/ -- The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
announced today the Global Warming Sweepstakes. The winner will
receive One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) in cash. The purpose of the
contest is to encourage public participation in the debate over
whether President Clinton should sign a treaty on global warming this
December in Kyoto, Japan. To enter the Global Warming Sweepstakes, a
contestant must visit the Junk Science Home Page
(http://www.junkscience.com) and, according to contest rules, send an
e-mail to President Clinton expressing an opinion whether the U.S.
should sign a treaty limiting emissions of so-called "greenhouse
gases." To be eligible for the Sweepstakes, opinions must be either
'for' or 'against' the treaty. It does not matter which position is
expressed; only that an opinion is transmitted. All U.S. residents are
eligible. The contest is void where prohibited. For those who have
questions about the global warming issue, information is provided at
the Junk Science Home Page. At the conclusion of the Kyoto meeting,
the contest will close. The winner of the One Thousand Dollars will
then be picked at random from all those who submitted eligible
opinions to President Clinton. The winner will receive a check from
TASSC. Asked about the contest, TASSC executive director Steven Milloy
said, "This contest was made possible by the Internet and is the first
of its kind. We hope to stimulate public education about the global
warming treaty and public participation in the national and
international debates." TASSC is a not-for-profit organization of
scientists, former public policy officials and other individuals,
foundations and businesses interested in the use of sound science in
public policy. TASSC is located at 1155 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,
Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20036, and on the World Wide Web at
http://www.tassc.org. SOURCE The Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition CONTACT: Steven Milloy of TASSC, 202-467-8586 or
milloy@cais.com/ ******* Sweepstakes Web Page Text ******* A recent
addition to the Junk Science Home Page concerning global warming and
the upcoming Kyoto meeting announces TASSC's "Global Warming
Sweepstakes" (www.junkscience.com/contest.html). The copy reads as
follows: Citizenship Pays! Win One Thousand Dollars Cash ($1,000.00)
To enter, simply click here to send an e-mail to President Clinton
expressing your opinion about whether he should sign a global warming
treaty in Kyoto, Japan, this December. At the conclusion of the Kyoto
meeting, each person who e-mailed an opinion to the White House
according to contest rules, will be entered into a random drawing for
One Thousand Dollars -- $1,000.00 -- in cash. The Junkman will draw
the winner who will be notified immediately by e-mail. The Prize will
be awarded by The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). It
does not matter whether you are 'for' or 'against' the treaty, you
enter the contest simply by expressing your opinion in an e-mail to
President Clinton. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to form an
opinion on the global warming treaty. If you need information on
global warming and the treaty click here. So there are no excuses for
not participating. If you can read and think, you can have your own
opinion. As an example, here's the Junkman's e- mail to President
Clinton. === Dear Mr. President: I urge you NOT to sign a global
warming treaty this December in Kyoto, Japan. Available science does
not show that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are affecting
global climate. A treaty that would require reductions in manmade
greenhouse gas emissions would cause energy prices to rise and would
be, in effect, an energy tax. A new energy tax would harm the U.S.
economy. And since the well-being of our public health and environment
depend on a prosperous economy, the global warming treaty would be
counter-productive and cause unnecessary harm across our standard of
living. Mr. President, just say "No" in Kyoto! Sincerely, Steven J.
Milloy, Washington, D.C. === Your e-mail does not need to be so
detailed. All you really need is a sentence expressing your opinion!
So click here to send your own e-mail to the President now and enter
the Global Warming Sweepstakes drawing for One Thousand Dollars in
cash! KEEP IN MIND THAT: if the President signs a global warming
treaty, you'll need the cash to pay the new energy tax; otherwise,
you'll have One Thousand Dollars to spend however you want! Material
presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author. *******
TASSC Facts (from CLEAR) ******* The Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition (TASSC) -- Run out of the Washington, DC, offices of the
public relations firm APCO and Associates, this "sound science"
coalition is supported by hundreds of corporations, including 3M,
Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Motors, Occidental
Petroleum, Philip Morris, Proctor & Gamble and W.R. Grace. Its
objective is to act as a speakers bureau to deliver the corporate
message that environmental public policy is not currently based on
"sound science," and to counter excessive regulations that are based
on what it considers "junk" science. _O'Dywer's PR Services_ reports
that TASSC is "leading the charge against what it views as the unholy
alliance between environmentalists and the media" (Feb. 1996). TASSC
claims to have 250 to 300 scientists as active members (_Tulsa World_,
April 25, 1996). TASSC was created in 1993 to promote "sound science"
in policy decision making. TASSC is chaired by former New Mexico
governor Garrey Caruthers, and claims a membership of over 400
corporations. In addition to many corporate representatives, TASSC's
extensive advisory board contains well known "science skeptics" S.
Fred Singer, Bruce Ames, Hugh Ellsaesser, Dr. Patrick Michaels,
Michael Sanera, and Hugn Ellsaesser. Former APCO and Associates Vice
President Thomas Hockaday, the original spokesman for TASSC, is now
employed by Direct Impact, a firm that specializes in manufacturing
astroturf opposition to regulations through the use of sophisticated
telemarketing campaigns. Direct Impact's client list includes the
American Petroleum Institute, a member of the Executive Committee of
the Air Quality Standards Coalition (the lead organization fighting
the EPA's stringent air pollution standards earlier this year), and a
supporter of several anti-global warming treaty organizations,
including the Global Climate Information Project, the Alliance for a
Responsible Atmospheric Policy, the Global Climate Coalition and the
Coalition for Vehicle Choice. Direct Impact recently announced a
merger with Burson- Marsteller, the p.r. firm that houses the
Foundation for Clean Air Progress, another anti-environmental
corporate front group. Steven Milloy, recently hired as executive
director of TASSC, is a self styled "junk science" critic who
previously launched the Junk Science Page through the Environmental
Policy Analysis Network (EPAN), a group he started in 1996. Milloy is
also a lobbyist for the EOP Group, a DC-based lobbying firm that
represents the American Crop Protection Association, the Chlorine
Chemistry Council, Edison Electric Institute, among others. Under
Milloy's personal listing of groups he represents through the EOP
Group in 1996 were Fort Howard Corp., the International Food Additives
Association, and Monsanto. According to the most recent edition of
_Washington Representatives_, Milloy's client list has grown to
include the National Mining Association, among others.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Steven Milloy, recently hired as executive director of  TASSC, is a
self styled "junk science" critic who previously launched the Junk
Science Page through the Environmental Policy Analysis Network (EPAN),
a group  he started in 1996. Milloy is also a lobbyist for the EOP
Group, a DC-based lobbying firm that represents the American Crop
Protection Association, the Chlorine Chemistry Council, Edison
Electric Institute, among others. Under Milloy's personal listing of
groups he represents through the EOP Group in 1996 were Fort Howard
Corp., the International Food Additives Association, and Monsanto.
According to the most recent edition of _Washington Representatives_,
Milloy's client list has grown to