Join Amazon Prime and ship Two-Day for free and Overnight for $3.99. Already a member? Sign in.
|
|||||||||
Better Together
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science In The Courtroom by Peter Huber  (10)
$20.00
|
Science at the Bar: Science and Technology in American Law (Twentieth Century Fund Books/Reports/Studies) by Sheila Jasanoff  (3)
$25.50
|
Laboratory of Justice: The Supreme Court's 200-Year Struggle to Integrate Science and the Law by David L. Faigman  (1)
|
Legal Alchemy: The Use and Misuse of Science in the Law by David L. Faigman (6)
|
The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers by Sheila Jasanoff
$22.95
|
Editorial Reviews
Product Description
Phantom risks are risks whose very existence is unproven and perhaps unprovable, yet they raise real problems at the interface of science and the law. Phantom Risk surveys a dozen scientific issues that have led to public controversy and litigation - among them, miscarriage from the use of video display terminals, birth defects in children whose mothers used the drug Bendectin, and cancer from low-intensity magnetic fields, and from airborne asbestos. It presents the scientific evidence behind these and other issues and summarizes the resulting litigation.
Focusing on the great disparity between the scientific evidence that is sufficient to arouse public fears and that needed to establish a hazard or its absence, these original contributions probe the problem of scientific ambiguity in risk assessment, and the mayhem this creates in the courtroom.
Although the authors are clearly optimistic about the use of science to detect and evaluate risks, they recognize the difficulty of inferring cause-and-effect relationships from epidemiological (observational) evidence and of inferring risks to humans from high-dose animal experiments, the two major sources of evidence. The final chapter reviews the exceptionally difficult problem of how the legal impact of disputes about phantom risks can be reduced.
About the Author
Kenneth R. Foster is Associate Professor in the Department of Bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania.
David E. Bernstein is an attorney at the law firm of Crowell & Moring.
Peter W. Huber is a Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and serves as Counsel to the law firm of Mayer, Brown & Platt.
Phantom risks are risks whose very existence is unproven and perhaps unprovable, yet they raise real problems at the interface of science and the law. Phantom Risk surveys a dozen scientific issues that have led to public controversy and litigation - among them, miscarriage from the use of video display terminals, birth defects in children whose mothers used the drug Bendectin, and cancer from low-intensity magnetic fields, and from airborne asbestos. It presents the scientific evidence behind these and other issues and summarizes the resulting litigation.
Focusing on the great disparity between the scientific evidence that is sufficient to arouse public fears and that needed to establish a hazard or its absence, these original contributions probe the problem of scientific ambiguity in risk assessment, and the mayhem this creates in the courtroom.
Although the authors are clearly optimistic about the use of science to detect and evaluate risks, they recognize the difficulty of inferring cause-and-effect relationships from epidemiological (observational) evidence and of inferring risks to humans from high-dose animal experiments, the two major sources of evidence. The final chapter reviews the exceptionally difficult problem of how the legal impact of disputes about phantom risks can be reduced.
About the Author
Kenneth R. Foster is Associate Professor in the Department of Bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania.
David E. Bernstein is an attorney at the law firm of Crowell & Moring.
Peter W. Huber is a Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and serves as Counsel to the law firm of Mayer, Brown & Platt.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Inside This Book Citations: This book cites 24 books | 13 books that cite this book Explore: Citations | Books on Related Topics | Concordance | Text Stats Key Phrases - SIPs: dietary avg, wiring configuration code, dozen epidemiologic studies, spermicide exposure, immunologic laboratory tests (more) Key Phrases - CAPs: New York, United States, Agent Orange, National Academy of Sciences, The Lancet (more) Browse Sample Pages: Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover | Surprise Me! |
||
Inside This Book
(learn more)
First Sentence:
Risk in technical usage is the probability that a person will experience an adverse effect from some activity or exposure. Read the first page Key Phrases - Statistically Improbable Phrases (SIPs): (learn more)
dietary avg, wiring configuration code, dozen epidemiologic studies, spermicide exposure, immunologic laboratory tests, traumatic cancer, spermicide use, phantom risk, mesothelioma risk, animal cancer tests, used spermicides, chemical plant workers, vaginal spermicides, carcinogenic potency database, simple trauma, dioxin exposure, residential studies, wiring code, rodent carcinogens, clinical ecologists, lay media, single trauma, domestic exposure, magnetic field exposure, limb reduction defects Key Phrases - Capitalized Phrases (CAPs): (learn more)
New York, United States, Agent Orange, National Academy of Sciences, The Lancet, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, National Cancer Institute, New Zealand, Environmental Protection Agency, National Research Council, Health Physics, Ranch Hands, Atomic Energy Commission, Cancer Res, Critique of the Alcolac Decision, Oak Ridge, World Health Organization, Harvard University, Health Persp, National Council, Dalkon Shield, Raven Press, Federal Rules of Evidence, Work Environ, World War New!
Books on Related Topics | Concordance | Text Stats Browse Sample Pages:
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents |
Risk in technical usage is the probability that a person will experience an adverse effect from some activity or exposure. Read the first page Key Phrases - Statistically Improbable Phrases (SIPs): (learn more)
dietary avg, wiring configuration code, dozen epidemiologic studies, spermicide exposure, immunologic laboratory tests, traumatic cancer, spermicide use, phantom risk, mesothelioma risk, animal cancer tests, used spermicides, chemical plant workers, vaginal spermicides, carcinogenic potency database, simple trauma, dioxin exposure, residential studies, wiring code, rodent carcinogens, clinical ecologists, lay media, single trauma, domestic exposure, magnetic field exposure, limb reduction defects Key Phrases - Capitalized Phrases (CAPs): (learn more)
New York, United States, Agent Orange, National Academy of Sciences, The Lancet, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, National Cancer Institute, New Zealand, Environmental Protection Agency, National Research Council, Health Physics, Ranch Hands, Atomic Energy Commission, Cancer Res, Critique of the Alcolac Decision, Oak Ridge, World Health Organization, Harvard University, Health Persp, National Council, Dalkon Shield, Raven Press, Federal Rules of Evidence, Work Environ, World War New!
Books on Related Topics | Concordance | Text Stats Browse Sample Pages:
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents |