Re: Conflicts of Interest and Journal Article Publications

[Guest guest]

,

I think your evaluation is right on the mark. Except for one aspect: The really sad irony of the situation is that because of these courtroom shenanigans, the public and physicians are not being provided sound information. This allows people to become much sicker than they should and then not able to obtain treatment. The ironic part of this scenario is that the sicker people become and the less proper medical treatment they receive, the more likely the matter is inclined to end up the courtroom and subjected to the shenanigans that are the root of the problem in the first place. Which cause people to be left uninformed, which....it's a never ending circle. Lives are being devastated while the courtroom games continue.

Sharon

The sad irony is that if the jury ends up believing either one of these particular "experts" they will end up doing the wrong thing to one party or the other. That is the problem when court cases are built around the ‘all or nothing’ outcome and the drive to get it 'all' involves avoiding the truth altogether or at least stretching it to its bitter limits.

I know, my cynicism is showing again.

Stojanik

[Guest guest]

"Ethical expert witnesses only provide their independent opinions based on the particular facts of each legal case. They are not advocates for either side, their role is just to assist the judge or jury in understanding the facts of the matter. As long as these ethical standards are followed, no conflict of interest should exist."

The key word there involving the "expert witness" in question is of course "Ethical". Its my experience however that the path to getting "ethical expert witnesses" has to begin with the personal "ethics" of the attorneys in question who hire those "experts". Sadly, there are far too many attorneys out there who are perfectly willing and able to shop for the 'expert opinions' they need in order to make their case based on the most favorable outcome for the attorney.

If the attorney needs someone who will support the argument that chemical X causes illness Y suffered by his client then that opinion always seems to be for hire without necessarily paying deference to the science that should be involved if the enigma commonly know as "the truth" was actually being sought. Conversely, the opposing council will find yet another expert who is perfectly willing to say the illness Y does not even exist so how could chemical X be its cause?

I recently conducted a third party inspection for the Texas Residential Construction Commission concerning some "alleged" construction defects in a newly built home. Both the homeowner and the builder had their own "experts" evaluate the property before I was brought in. Naturally the homeowner (who was an attorney himself) hired an "expert" who painted a horror story of destruction concerning the property while figuratively holding up a sign reading "The Apocalypse is HERE". Conversely, the builder hired his own "expert" who shrugged it all off and essentially claimed that all was well with the house while the tune "Don’t Worry, Be Happy" whistled subliminally in the background.

I show up working for neither the homeowner or the builder but for the State of Texas and find that the truth was to be found somewhere between the diametrically opposed opinions offered by the experts. The state was trying to help these parties settle their dispute with a state sponsored arbitration but I am reasonably certain that these guys are going to end up in court nonetheless and the state sponsored arbitration that I assisted with was just a hurtle that needed to be passed on the way to the ultimate destination of a courtroom docket. Needless to say I will not be asked by either side to provide any testimony in court because neither side ultimately liked what I had to say about the reality of the situation as I saw it during my investigation.

The sad irony is that if the jury ends up believing either one of these particular "experts" they will end up doing the wrong thing to one party or the other. That is the problem when court cases are built around the ‘all or nothing’ outcome and the drive to get it 'all' involves avoiding the truth altogether or at least stretching it to its bitter limits.

I know, my cynicism is showing again.

Stojanik

Conflicts of Interest and Journal Article Publications

Dear List(s):A recent post on this list (below) piqued my interest. I would like to see some discussion about "conflicts of interest" (in general or perhaps more specifically concerning journal article publication). The statement in the "Gooz News" newsletter in the post sent earlier implied that some unethical behavior was afoot.In my opinion, just because an author has served as (and been paid to be) an expert witness for a defendant or a plaintiff in a lawsuit does not necessarily constitute a bias or a conflict of interest on his or her part or that their role as an expert needs to be disclosed in a journal. Of course, if an expert only testifies on one side or the other, this at least gives the appearance of a bias, which can be just as damning. One the other hand, if an expert routinely testifies using theories not generally accepted in their field or just provides what the attorney wants them to say, there should be some censure involved. Ethical expert witnesses only provide their independent opinions based on the particular facts of each legal case. They are not advocates for either side, their role is just to assist the judge or jury in understanding the facts of the matter. As long as these ethical standards are followed, no conflict of interest should exist.What do you think, listmates? If someone has worked as an expert witness, should that alone be enough to view their other work (including submission of journal articles) with a skeptical eye?Regards, Dydek Dr. M. Dydek, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., P.E.

Chemical Toxicologist and Engineer

Dydek Toxicology Consulting

6013 Cervinus Run

Austin, Texas 78735

Web Site: www.tox-expert.com

Office Phone:

Office FAX:

Mobile Phone:

Now Celebrating More Than 10 Years in Business_________________________________________________________________________snk1955@... wrote:

March 31, 2006

Integrity in Science Watch -- Week of 3/31/2006

The prestigious Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (JACI) last month failed to disclose two physicians' roles as insurance company defense experts in their scientific review "The Medical Effects of Mold Exposure," which downplayed risks to human health from household mold. According to court documents obtained by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Dr. Abba I. Terr, Stanford University School of Medicine, and Dr. Saxon, University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine, were paid up to $600 an hour for testimony in cases brought by homeowners alleging their illnesses were caused by mold. JACI, the journal of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI), requires authors to disclose conflicts of interest to the editor, who then has discretion in publishing them. In a letter to editor Leung, CSPI urged AAAAI to make disclosure mandatory and prevent authors who fail to disclose conflicts of interest from publishing in the journal for three years.

[Guest guest]

A couple of comments:

1) I don't think that the JACI is saying that there is (or is not) a conflict of

interest -- it simply requires disclosure as a general policy, which is in

keeping

with the editorial standards of most reputable academic journals. Failure to

disclose the potential or appearance of conflict is a problem, regardless of

whether actual conflict exists.

2) This discussion illustrates why Journal articles (especially those from

serious, reputable Journals with effective conflict policies) are a more

reliable

source of information than other publications like Conference Procedings,

newspaper and magazine articles, where conflicts are more the norm than the

exception. The reason is simple: there is a consequence in terms of the

author's reputation and career if they fail to follow the conflict policies.

My observation is that " experts " who have had articles published by reputable

Journals are generally more trustworthy than those who have published a lot,

but in lower-quality forums like Conference Proceedings and magazines. The

differences are: 1) higher editorial standards; 2) the requirement of peer

review; and 3) willingness to submit to conflict and other policies.

Just my two cents worth!

Dave Bell, Ph.D. President

EMLab -- Environmental Microbiology Laboratory, Inc.

[Guest guest]

M. Dydek wrote:

>

>

> Ethical expert witnesses only provide their independent opinions based

> on the particular facts of each legal case. They are not advocates

> for either side, their role is just to assist the judge or jury in

> understanding the facts of the matter. As long as these ethical

> standards are followed, no conflict of interest should exist.

:

This is an excellent, to-the-point statement. It is how I distinguish my

role for a client from that of their attorney. The attorney is an

advocate. An expert witness should try to provide opinions, based on the

evidence, or lack thereof, that would be the same regardless of which

side hired the expert.

As others have noted, the position of expert witnesses is sometimes

" known " before their testimony, because they are either advocates of a

position that favors one side of typical cases, or their objectivity is

suspect.

One suggestion would be to have witnesses who have experience with both

plaintiffs and defendants on similar issues and whom are recommended by

attorneys from both sides.

Don Schaezler, Ph.D., P.E., CIH

ETC Information Services, LLC

Cibolo, Texas

[Guest guest]

and ,

I agree with the original and the response (below). What do you think

of those that claim neutrality because they carefully balance their

expert testimony so they work for equal numbers of plaintiffs and

defendants?

Sounded good to me until I saw most being advocates for whomever

hired them. Their basis for a claim of neutrality was that +2 -2 = 0

is the same as being neutral. Seems to me it was clever marketing to

both sides of the fence, going to whichever side gave the highest

bid.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> M. Dydek wrote:

> >

> >

> > Ethical expert witnesses only provide their independent opinions

> > based on the particular facts of each legal case. They are not

> > advocates for either side, their role is just to assist the judge or

> > jury in understanding the facts of the matter. As long as these

> > ethical standards are followed, no conflict of interest should

> > exist.

> :

> This is an excellent, to-the-point statement. It is how I distinguish

> my role for a client from that of their attorney. The attorney is an

> advocate. An expert witness should try to provide opinions, based on

> the evidence, or lack thereof, that would be the same regardless of

> which side hired the expert.

>

> As others have noted, the position of expert witnesses is sometimes

> " known " before their testimony, because they are either advocates of a

> position that favors one side of typical cases, or their objectivity

> is suspect.

>

> One suggestion would be to have witnesses who have experience with

> both plaintiffs and defendants on similar issues and whom are

> recommended by attorneys from both sides.

>

> Don Schaezler, Ph.D., P.E., CIH

> ETC Information Services, LLC

> Cibolo, Texas

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

> always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are

> making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding

> of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,

> scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this

> constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided

> for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed

> without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

> receiving the included information for research and educational

> purposes. For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use

> copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go

> beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright

> owner.

[Guest guest]

"Spin " is in the eyes of the beholder, especially when you don't agree with the result. Unfortunately we will never make everyone feel we are fair even though we take pains personally to try to do so.

So, Do the best you can, try to learn what you don't know, admit when you don't know something, always tell the truth with compassion = sleeping good at night and not having to try to remember what you said.

Lee R. RameyMCT, MRT, AMRT,CRMIMold and Mildew Solutions llc716 Ninth St. No,Birmingham Al 35203Mailing Address:P.O. Box 311405Birmingham Al 35231Fax email: lrramey@...For free consumer reports reply to this e-mail. Subjects include Water Damage, Mold Remediation, Carpet Cleaning, Hardwood Floor Care, and others.

[Guest guest]

Tony,

Those are such wise words. I am of the opinion that a true "expert" looks at the big picture for their clients and helps them find their way through the problem by taking the path of least resistance. The amount of stress, contention, wasted money and destroyed lives would be greatly reduced if experts would advise toward as amicable resolution as possible. It appears to me that some experts only advise on how to crush the opponent. This second method just increases the heartache and damages for all parties concerned. But guess who generates more income from this method because it requries more of their services? Yep, you guessed it, the agressive expert!

Sharon

Dydek, You stated:

"Theoretically, an expert should come up with the same opinion based on the facts of the case no matter if he or she is working for the defense or the plaintiff."

An expert may, but one finds two things:

1) An expert gravitates to one side in general (or only be hired for that side).

2) Where the expert does find their client has an issue, it is usually settled well before trial or even before an expert is deposed - and those records aren't revealed in previous testimony (without the proper questioning). This occurred with another expert on a case I was on recently. For another example, I told a client once to settle cause there's no way you'll get me to agree with your opinion - she did, after a long long discussion [working for the Plaintiff]. Along similar lines [working for Defendent] I tried to get the client to see that they were partly liable (took a Biblical verse to get the message across). That case settled as well. I was not deposed in either case and thus there are no public records for review.

I like to state that I will be a consulting expert and then after I review all the information I request, the attorney and their client can then choose whether to use me as an expert witness. Otherwise, I'm not really "assisting the trier of fact", it's closer to assisting the one of the parties in the dispute.

Tony

[Guest guest]

Dydek, You stated:

"Theoretically, an expert should come up with the same opinion based on the facts of the case no matter if he or she is working for the defense or the plaintiff."

An expert may, but one finds two things:

1) An expert gravitates to one side in general (or only be hired for that side).

2) Where the expert does find their client has an issue, it is usually settled well before trial or even before an expert is deposed - and those records aren't revealed in previous testimony (without the proper questioning). This occurred with another expert on a case I was on recently. For another example, I told a client once to settle cause there's no way you'll get me to agree with your opinion - she did, after a long long discussion [working for the Plaintiff]. Along similar lines [working for Defendent] I tried to get the client to see that they were partly liable (took a Biblical verse to get the message across). That case settled as well. I was not deposed in either case and thus there are no public records for review.

I like to state that I will be a consulting expert and then after I review all the information I request, the attorney and their client can then choose whether to use me as an expert witness. Otherwise, I'm not really "assisting the trier of fact", it's closer to assisting the one of the parties in the dispute.

Tony

........................................................................... "Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PEpH2, LLCPO Box 34140Indianapolis, IN 46234 cell90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%â„ This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this statement.

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of M. DydekSent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:49 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Conflicts of Interest and Journal Article PublicationsDear Carl and list,You are right, Carl, just because an expert has testified on behalf of both Defendants and Plaintiffs does not in itself insure an expert's neutrality. I guess the better way to gauge an expert's independence is to see whether or not they have voiced similar opinions when working for one side versus working for the other. Theoretically, an expert should come up with the same opinion based on the facts of the case no matter if he or she is working for the defense or the plaintiff. Of course the attorneys, as advocates for their clients, will sometimes try to get the expert to "spin" the facts their way.That being said, there are some "checks and balances" in the system. Especially today with the resources of the Internet, it is not difficult to access testimony an expert has given before. One of the best ways to discredit an expert is to bring out old testimony from cases in which the facts are similar to the case at hand and for which the expert came up with a different opinion while working for the other side. The old adage "It's easier to tell the truth, then you don't have to remember what you said before." might be a propos here.Just my $0.02 worth... Dydek_____________________________________________________________-Carl E. Grimes wrote:

and ,

I agree with the original and the response (below). What do you think of those that claim neutrality because they carefully balance their expert testimony so they work for equal numbers of plaintiffs and defendants?

Sounded good to me until I saw most being advocates for whomever hired them. Their basis for a claim of neutrality was that +2 -2 = 0 is the same as being neutral. Seems to me it was clever marketing to both sides of the fence, going to whichever side gave the highest bid. Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

M. Dydek wrote:

Ethical expert witnesses only provide their independent opinions

based on the particular facts of each legal case. They are not

advocates for either side, their role is just to assist the judge or

jury in understanding the facts of the matter. As long as these

ethical standards are followed, no conflict of interest should

exist.

:

This is an excellent, to-the-point statement. It is how I distinguish

my role for a client from that of their attorney. The attorney is an

advocate. An expert witness should try to provide opinions, based on

the evidence, or lack thereof, that would be the same regardless of

which side hired the expert.

As others have noted, the position of expert witnesses is sometimes

"known" before their testimony, because they are either advocates of a

position that favors one side of typical cases, or their objectivity

is suspect.

One suggestion would be to have witnesses who have experience with

both plaintiffs and defendants on similar issues and whom are

recommended by attorneys from both sides.

Don Schaezler, Ph.D., P.E., CIH

ETC Information Services, LLC

Cibolo, Texas

FAIR USE NOTICE:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are

making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding

of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,

scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this

constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided

for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed

without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

receiving the included information for research and educational

purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use

copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go

beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright

owner.