12 ms·

Trial by jury is so badly equipped to answer complicated questions like does Roundup/glyphosate cause cancer, and did it specifically cause this cancer. Juries

• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• rayiner 7y ago
  The jury is not answering that question. The jury is just there to evaluate the credibility of the competing experts who have offered opinions on that question. If lay people are not equipped to evaluate such credibility, that calls into question the very underpinnings of our policy-making institutions. Luckily, lay people are qualified to make those judgments. Whenever I have seen an actual jury at work, I have consistently been impressed by the degree to which folks can absorb the information presented at trial. They are far from "random number generators": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628507/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628507/ > If this claim is valid, an ideal study would be to compare the judgments of medical doctors to the verdicts rendered by juries. A study by Taragin et al. [31] did just that. The study utilized data from the closed claim files of a medical liability insurer. The insurers had medical doctors closely examine the medical records in cases involving claims of medical negligence to determine if medical negligence had occurred. Tarragin et al. [31] compared these judgments with verdicts rendered by juries if the case went to trial. The jury verdicts tended to be consistent with the medical judgments. Moreover, the study found that verdicts were not related to the severity of the injury suffered by the plaintiff, an indication that juries were not basing their judgment out of mere sympathy for a seriously injured patient. Farber and White [13] also compared jury verdicts to hospital records bearing on negligence. Those authors found that the jury verdicts favored the hospital in all cases that the hospital had rated as not-negligent. The billion-dollar punitive damages verdict, moreover, is not crazy considering that the point of punitive damages is to deter similar conduct in the future. If you look at what folks here on HN--presumably quite knowledgeable about the subject matter--were saying about how much Facebook should be fined to deter conduct like that which led to the Cambridge Analytica issues, the numbers were likewise in the billions of dollars.
  • omginternets 7y ago
    >The jury is just there to evaluate the credibility of the competing experts who have offered opinions on that question. It's not clear that they're competent to do this, either. >If lay people are not equipped to evaluate such credibility, that calls into question the very underpinnings of our policy-making institutions. Not necessarily. It just calls into question whether the system works well in this class of cases. >Whenever I have seen an actual jury at work, I have consistently been impressed by the degree to which folks can absorb the information presented at trial. Have you seen something even remotely comparable to the case being discussed here?
    • will_brown 7y ago
      >Have you seen something even remotely comparable to the case being discussed here? The tobacco cases come to mind.
      • dawnerd 7y ago
        I was part of one growing up, the jurors definitely were not just judging based on emotions or lack of facts. They end up voting on a series of yes/no questions that ultimately narrow down the decision. End of the day the judge is still in charge and if he doesn't like the result it will get tossed. We went through the process twice - winning both times no less.
      • omginternets 7y ago
        Are you suggesting that the juries in those cases were competent to understand and evaluate the science of cancer? Just because they happened to make the right choice doesn't make them competent. A broken clock is right twice a day.
        • will_brown 7y ago
          >Just because they happened to make the right choice doesn't make them competent. So let me get this right...you don’t think a jury can comprehend and understand the facts being presented to them through experts, yet without hearing any facts or experts you can confirm these juries “made the right choice”? As I said before there will be educated people in this thread who down play a juries ability to make a accurate finding of fact and yet be all to happy to make their own findings without any knowledge of the facts of a given case or expert testimony, just as you did.
• will_brown 7y ago
  >Jury == random number generator. Maybe they get it right, but only by chance. They may be laymen on the subject, but they heard the evidence and expert testimony...that makes them more knowledgeable about the facts than anyone in this thread, and yet you’ll see many educated people here with opinions without any facts (beyond newspaper articles). And while they may be better equipped to make a finding of fact of a criminal case (did person x do y), but often it’s still just a chance they get it right, plus those criminal cases have a much higher standard than a civil case. So it’s important to keep in mind what is being asked of the jury here. They aren’t asking if roundup cause cancer, not even asking did roundup cause cancer beyond a reasonable doubt, but simply based on the expert testimony and facts presented is it more likely than not (>50% chance) Roundup caused cancer.
  • gowld 7y ago
    Expert testimony just mean two opposing claims paid for by the respective sides. The jury is in no position to determine which claim is more correct.
    • will_brown 7y ago
      Actually that is the exact position the jury is in, and they do it everyday. Do you have any evidence or studies to suggest juries can’t determine credibility of expert testimony?
      • buzzdenver 7y ago
        It's almost impossible to determine credibility in a field that you know nothing about. Any sufficiently complicated question can be argued using facts on both sides, and a non-expert will have no idea how much weight each fact should have. For example anyone in software could argue why using the cloud for anything is a horrible idea. And remember that jurors are not allowed to do research at home, and expert witnesses cannot directly debate the topics.
        • checkyoursudo 7y ago
• GuB-42 7y ago
  I think this is one reason we have juries. They represent popular justice. Justice is supposed to serve the people, it is not a rule-based programming language, there is a human element behind it. That's why we have magistrates, who make sure the rules are properly applied, and juries, who make sure the decision matches what the people want. So in this case, magistrates decided that what Bayer did was punishable and the people, represented by the jury, decided that Bayer are assholes and definitely deserve it. I don't agree but it is, I think, an important component of a democratic justice system. Of course, Bayer will appeal. So maybe this time, science will prevail. I hope so.
  • spraak 7y ago
    > Of course, Bayer will appeal. So maybe this time, science will prevail. I hope so. i.e. you're saying that according to science Roundup does not cause cancer?
    • klmr 7y ago
      I guess they’re saying that there’s, on balance, no good evidence to suggest that (especially proper use of) Roundup causes cancer. Because that’s the prevailing expert opinion, backed up by decades of studies.
      • consp 7y ago
        The scientific opinion is that is insufficient evidence to either exclude or include it as a cancer cause but most studies show some increase. This is the main reason for only extending the permit in the EU for 5 years instead of indefinitely. It is also grade 2A by the WHO, which basically means it may cause cancer in humans.
        • klmr 7y ago
          > The scientific opinion is that is insufficient evidence to either exclude or include it as a cancer cause but most studies show some increase. No, this is patently false. Out of all expert consortia, only IARC (= WHO) has reached this conclusion, and it was universally criticised for both the way they report risks (which is highly misleading), and the fact that their publication in turn suppressed contradictory results. All other relevant expert consortia state that the evidence does not support the conclusion of glyphosate and/or Roundup being carcinogenic when used correctly, despite the existence of decades worth of data which should show carcinogenicity, if it had an appreciable effect. “Most studies”, especially high-quality ones, show absolutely no effect.
• everdev 7y ago
  The other thing to consider is there are a reported ~2,200 billionaires in the world (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/07/forbes-there-are-a-record-2208-billionaires-in-the-world.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/07/forbes-there-are-a-record-22...) In the process of creating damages that dissuade companies from damaging behavior, we're also creating people with immense power (if they ever collect). I could see a $2B amount making sense if the couple controlled a multi million dollar company that failed because they fell ill from cancer. But otherwise, wouldn't it make sense to pay the victims some multiple of their average annual income for life plus health care costs and send the rest to a charity or hospital? That would still generate a $2B verdict as a deterrent, but would also limit people from obtaining massive wealth without creating value.
  • anbop 7y ago
    The point of the fine is to subtract it from Monsanto. Who gets it is secondary.
    • everdev 7y ago
      Yeah, but if the primary objective is working, it might be worth optimizing the secondary objective as well.
  • ionised 7y ago
    You don't think giving someone a terminal illness is worth appropriate compensation? What you described as compensation I would describe as adding insult to injury.
    • everdev 7y ago
      Unfortunately, equating a human life to dollars is always insulting. To that individual, their life could be worth an infinite amount and more than all the money in the world. So, it's always a messy business trying to compensate someone for their health.
      • 7y ago
• jlarocco 7y ago
  You haven't given any evidence to back up your claim. What in particular makes you believe the jury in this case wasn't equipped to answer the questions asked of them? No doubt it's complicated, but to play devil's advocate, if a company can't demonstrate to a lay person that a chemical isn't dangerous and how to use it safely, then perhaps they shouldn't sell the chemical to the general public, and maybe should even be punished for doing so.
  • ende 7y ago
    You have the burden of proof reversed.
    • jlarocco 7y ago
      That response doesn't make any sense. I didn't agree or disagree with, I simply asked the OP to explain their reasoning. And I also disagree that the burden of proof would be on the "other side". The status quo is trial by jury. That will never change if nobody wants to explain why they think it's bad or what would work better.
      • technothrasher 7y ago
        I believe the burden of proof response was in relation to the statement, "if a company can't demonstrate to a lay person that a chemical isn't dangerous". That would be asking them to "prove a negative" (really, it's proving a universal claim, not a negative claim, but 'negative' is the popular tagline). This cannot ever be done. All you can do is show that there is no credible evidence that it is dangerous. At the point, the burden of proof lies with the the claim that it is, in fact, dangerous.
  • lordlimecat 7y ago
    >given any evidence to back up your claim. What in particular makes you believe the jury in this case wasn't equipped to answer the questions asked of them? Given the staggering consensus on glyphosates safety-- the outcome of the case would make me say that.
• mikeash 7y ago
  The entire concept of trying to determine fault in specific cancer cases is bogus. Carcinogens change the odds, but you can never definitively point to one as being at fault for a particular cancer.
  • Digory 7y ago
    Civil Juries are asked to make a probabilistic decision, not a definitive decision. The filter end up being whether it is "more likely than not, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" a cause of the harm.
• vkou 7y ago
  > and did it specifically cause this cancer. If I sit you down for 30 minutes on a drum of dangerous nuclear waste, and within a year, you develop prostate cancer, how would you ever be able to definitively prove that I caused that cancer? It could have, after all, been a random mutation in your body - caused by a stray cosmic ray. Cancer is a probabilistic outcome. It is impossible to prove that any one particular thing caused any one particular cancer. Does that mean that I should not be liable?
  • dwaltrip 7y ago
    To clarify, you are hinting that there is a strong case to me be made for holding you liable, correct? I had a hard time determining what your takeaway was. I would agree with that, as society should work to prevent actions that significantly increase the probability of severe harm, even if complete and definitive proof of harm cannot be had in each individual case. I would be surprised if case law doesn't support that general idea. I'm sure the courts have had to deal with probabilistic situations before.
  • carlmr 7y ago
    For an individual no, but with enough data points, which probably exist since roundup exists long enough, you could make a reliable prediction where it came from.
    • bluGill 7y ago
      But if there are enough data points and they show roundup doesn't cause cancer above the population baseline, if someone who used roundup gets cancer we should in turn conclude roundup wasn't the cause.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• miguelmota 7y ago
  The jury is meant to be a random selection of members of society, but what alternative do you propose then; a jury of 'experts' in the field? that would seem flawed
  • ekianjo 7y ago
    Juding the crediibility of each side does not mean you are anywhere closer to the truth. How about commissioning independent studies to answer the question?
    • josefx 7y ago
      You are aware that Monsanto internal emails where made public that showed them colluding with various "independent" agencies? They shot themselves in the foot trying to make the issue go away instead of letting follow up studies clear Roundup of any cancer issues.
      • ekianjo 7y ago
        Then such studies were not independent per definition if Monsanto had any kind of access to them or who conducted them. If need be, mandate the government to monitor said studies and sue any form of intervention. There are many ways to make it more difficult for companies to put pressure: secrecy, duplication, decentralization, etc...
        • josefx 7y ago
          > mandate the government to monitor said studies The studies in those emails where kicked of by government agencies in response to the cancer claims. So that is exactly the scenario Monsanto already has interfered with and is prepared to interfere with again. > and sue any form of intervention. So we double down on lawsuits instead of just using one and util those new lawsuits are decided the old one spends decades in limbo? Right now the getting caught trying to manipulate studies was part of the original lawsuit and Monsanto/Bayer certainly did not enjoy the results. > secrecy, duplication, decentralization That seems to contradict the whole do "two" studies directly in response of the lawsuit. They are not secret, just two means you can manipulate one without any way to decide the correct study and having the same government agencies from the emails set them up just the kind of centralisation any company with regulators in their poket would love.
• MisterBastahrd 7y ago
  That's what I expect a person who has never been on a jury would say. Once upon a time, I sat on a jury. A man whose job was to clean the interior storage holds of massive ships was driving a work vehicle and hit by a truck full of joyriding kids on a highway surrounded by cane fields. The kids didn't see him, he didn't see them. He filed a claim with his employer's insurance agency. His employer sided with the insurance agency and tried to offer him a pittance for pain, suffering, medical costs, and rehabilitation. The man had a high school education and worked hard for his employer for 3 decades, doing backbreaking work. To do this work, you had to put on a hazmat suit and climb up and down 100+ feet of ladder, lugging your cleaning equipment and cleaning lines with you, then stand around with your hands above your head spraying chemicals for hours to clean one of these vessels. The injuries he suffered were debilitating. The insurance company set some private investigators out, looking for evidence that he was lying about his impairment. The best they could come up with was that he washed his car. They tried to make it seem like he was faking, but the timestamp evidence showed that it took the man over 2 hours to wash his car and that he had to take multiple breaks because of his pain. Their expert witness testified that he could have done the work of spraying the vessel. What he couldn't have done is make the climb. They had to fuse his vertebrae and put pins in his hip and knee. His employer testified that they would have promoted him to foreman, but cross examination showed that a foreman was expected to examine the vessel, which was impossible for him because he couldn't safely make the climb, pain or not, and even if he could, he wouldn't have been able to safely board the ship. He was making good money for someone without an education, $60K or so a year. At 50, he had expected to work for another 15 years. The insurance company decided that his pain, suffering, loss of wages, loss of benefits, and loss of employment was worth $180k. His insurance policy called for full compensation for lost wages. We ruled in his favor for $1.3M, to be shared by the employer for being lying sacks of crap after 30 years of service, and his insurance company for not honoring their contract. THAT was equitable. Pain, suffering, lost wages, the bullshit he was put through during the legal process, and loss of ability to enjoy physical activity in the future. They all matter. Tell me again how we were badly equipped to answer complicated questions.
  • Aeolun 7y ago
    You were well equipped to answer that particular question. Do you think the answer would be as straightforward if you substituted your jury on this case?
• bsder 7y ago
  > Trial by jury is so badly equipped to answer complicated questions like does Roundup/glyphosate cause cancer, and did it specifically cause this cancer. If a company is willing to engage in an extended cover-up, the jury can, rightfully, draw the conclusion that the company actually believes there is a problem even if their paid "experts" claim otherwise. This is civil court, not criminal. The standards are different.
• Causality1 7y ago
  A random number generator is still better than an arbitrator, who more often than not sides with whomever has the most money.
• StanislavPetrov 7y ago
  That's true. Its unfortunate that our regulatory agencies have been so utterly captured by industry that they are essentially worthless when it comes to oversight. Worse yet, the existence of these agencies gives many a false sense of confidence that there is some governmental body out there insuring that we aren't being poisoned by corporations and that our environment isn't being saturated by chemicals, but unfortunately that isn't so.
• throw2016 7y ago
  Who is a 'lay person'? Since few here are scientists who have done studies on pesticides and roundup everyone on this board is a lay person and thus hardly in a position to make any informed comment on rule of law or this case. Your whole 'lay person' argument discredits all lay people including yourself, given 'experts' have designed the system and it is working as designed, so what is the value of a lay software persons opinion on matters of law and pesticides? This is throwing a tantrum against rule of law. It shocking many here have no respect for citizens and by extension democracy, have appropriated for themselves a monopoly of wisdom and think science is something only scientists understand. Well that rules out the software engineers as they are not scientists or experts and they should limit comment to software issues or this is clear evidence of the dunning kruger effect in the software ecosystem. There are serious disagreements among scientists so there is no 'scientific consensus' on a large number of issues. For normal people here when top voted comments show open disdain for citizens and democracy and cannot have empathy for citizens being potentially poisoned and side with billion dollar pharmaceutical companies you are in serious trouble.