Science on trial
It’s always frightening when matters of science are settled in a court of law. And a relief when reason prevails.
Last week, an Australian judge declared that yes, HIV does exist and that it causes AIDS.
The criminal case was filed against a HIV-positive man, Andre Chad Parenzee, for knowingly exposing his sexual partners to the virus. In his defense, he maintained that “the existence of HIV has not been proven” and that “there is no scientific evidence that AIDS is caused by a unique infectious agent.”
The case dragged on for months and although it wasn't covered much outside the US, did create waves in Australia. Robert Gallo, who established the link between HIV and AIDS in 1984, appeared (by videolink) for the prosecution and was grilled by the defense about his research and his notorious squabble with French virologist Luc Montagnier. AIDS denialism has its supporters even among scientists and the dissident Perth Group, led by two Australian doctors, appeared as "expert witnesses" for the defense.
Parenzee had been convicted on three counts of endangering lives and had appealed. Justice John Sulan said last week that the Perth Group witnesses lacked credibility and threw out the appeal.
The two doctors continue to be employed by the Royal Perth Hospital, although AIDS Truth, a loosely banded group of scientists and activists, and other are calling for their dismissal. As I've written here before, AIDS denialism has serious consequences in some parts of the world and is not simply an academic debate. It's time Australian scientists joined these activists in making sure science prevails.
Comments
In a recent decision, Acting Kings County supreme Court Judge Michael Ambrosio (Brooklyn, NY) turned science on its head by siding with the plaintiff's attorney rather than the expert arborist who testified that you could determine where a tree had germinated by examination of the stumps and noting the pith location.
He further testified that the growth pattern and typical weed species of the trees involved made it extremely unlikely that the plaintiffs in this property dispute could have planted the trees they claimed to in this property dispute; see Zeltser v. Sacerdote. Disputing his testimony was like disputing that a radiologist can diagnose a fracture from an x-ray. Judges have distorted their role under Daubert as gatekeepers through willfull ignorance.
Posted by: Alan Sacerdote, MD, FACP | August 23, 2007 09:54 AM
I do occasional medicolegal work in fringe areas involving unorthodox practitioners who have deeply misguided opinions on issues that can have wide social and economic ramifications. As a result, I have come to appreciate the important differences between legal and scientific definitions of 'evidence' and 'facts'. This is relevant to Apoorva Mandavilli's concerns about AIDS denialism. Unless they have acted illegally, pursuing maverick practitioners who cause social harm, either through the courts or the regulatory system, is doomed to failure.
In recent years, the legal fraternity in Australia has been much better at discerning 'junk science' and their application of Daubert principles is beginning to have an impact.
The best we can do as scientists and practitioners is to make ourselves available to the courts to provide independent and well articulated expert testimony when required.
Posted by: Rob Loblay | May 21, 2007 07:20 PM
In my opinion, as long as it is legal for people to tell lies about matters of public health, it is of little use, and perhaps even counterproductive to attempt to "censor" their lies in other ways. While justice Sulan's ruling makes it clear that the witnesses for the defence were not simply misinformed, but actually deceitful on many points, in this type of pre-trial hearing there is no perjury penalty.
This trial is of trivial importance to public health, in contrast to the other major venue where the Perth Group has testified: The South African Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel. The results of the deceptions presented during those panel meetings were responsible for delays in the South African government's response to its AIDS crisis. Commendably, the South African government is now recovering, and has now spelled out a plan of action as noted in today's editorial (Nature 447, 1 (3 May 2007) | doi:10.1038/447001a; Published online 2 May 2007)
In many areas, there are restrictions on "free speech". For example it is not legal to lie about most financial matters. It can even be illegal to "stretch the truth" about the value of a company's stock, for example, or even to tell the truth at the wrong time (to promote insider trading for example). As long as there are no such laws about telling lies that impact public health, we should expect more problems in this area, for example from the anti-vaccine lobbies.
Some countries have some laws regarding the labeling of some drugs. For example in the USA, the FDA restricts claims put on labels of prescription drugs. But in other areas of medical law, there is much room for improvement.
Posted by: Brian Foley | May 2, 2007 07:00 PM