Historically, the law has struggled to formulate rules of evidence for governing scientific testimony. The issue was resolved at the federal and, in most cases, state levels when special rules of evidence were adopted and then interpreted by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow.Unfortunately, the problem is still unresolved at the effector level, where cases are tried and decisions are made that involve scientific issues. Firms that represent power companies and cell-phone companies adopted an organized, coherent strategy and database for attacking scientific testimony offered by plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ bar, in contrast, is disorganized, incoherent, and capable only of ad hoc strategies that invariably make little sense, either legally or scientifically. Plaintiffs’ mega-firms have sometimes succeeded in high-profile cases, such as those involving cigarettes and asbestos, but they have failed even more spectacularly in other cases because their strategies were inconsistent with modern scientific jurisprudence.

EMF plaintiffs are still waiting for an economically powerful lawyer who understands how to use the post-Daubert rules governing scientific evidence. The rewards for the plaintiffs and their lawyers, and for the public will be great.