Public health and healthcare work best when the medicines people take, the guidance they receive, and the policies that govern their care are grounded in sound scientific evidence. That evidence needs to be rigorous and continually updated not only to ensure accuracy but also to properly inform new discoveries.
But science is not infallible, which is why it needs honest brokers who stay faithful to the standards of good research and sound evidence rather than bending those standards to serve ideological or financial ends. Yet, despite the importance of scientific integrity, misleading studies and junk science are increasingly being used to challenge credible evidence for just such ends – a dynamic some legal scholars have coined as the “liar’s dividend”.
The intersection of public health and junk science represents a particularly troubling example of these new trends. Instead of relying on the normal processes of scientific research and regulations that balance risk-benefit and enable patient decision-making, the courts are being used by plaintiffs’ attorneys in mass tort litigation to introduce alternative viewpoints on established science. Since courts take an adversarial approach to determine fault and remedy, medical risk can be distorted and the consequences can extend far beyond the courtroom.
History already provides a troubling look at the damage that flawed science can cause. A now-retracted study in the late 1990s that falsely linked vaccines to autism has helped fuel vaccine hesitancy and contributed to the measles outbreaks we are experiencing today. In another instance, a widely cited but thinly supported letter in the New England Journal of Medicine suggesting addiction risk from prescription opioids was minimal, helped lay the groundwork for the worst overdose epidemic in the history of the United States.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys have an important role in holding companies accountable for genuine harm. But there is a sector in the modern mass-tort industry that has also created incentives to generate large volumes of lawsuits built on contested scientific claims. The American Tort Reform Association’s (ATRA) new report explains how junk science can ultimately “reshape regulatory policy, drive products off the market, and mislead judges and juries tasked with evaluating complex scientific questions.”
At a time when the boundary between litigation claims and scientific consensus is already under strain, the selection of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a tort attorney, to serve as Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services only adds to this uncertainty. To be clear, he is not just any tort attorney, but one who built much of his public profile and built a fortune on litigation and public campaigns challenging the safety of certain medical products. As that background now intersects with federal health research and policymaking, many wonder what the impact will be upon the numerous healthcare functions under his direction.
In recent months, Kennedy has issued guidance and public commentary raising concerns about widely used medicines such as acetaminophen and revisiting long-settled questions about vaccine safety, often citing limited or contested research. When claims that originate in litigation or advocacy begin to influence national health messaging, the risk is that disputed theories migrate from the courtroom into the public health conversation, further blurring the line between scientific evaluation and legal argument.
For patients and clinicians, the practical consequences are straightforward. When exaggerated or poorly supported claims about medical risks dominate the conversation, trust in proven therapies can erode. Patients may hesitate to begin treatment or stop taking medications that manage serious chronic diseases. Over time, those individual decisions accumulate into broader public health setbacks.
Some legal scholars and tort reform experts argue that stronger evidentiary standards could help limit the influence of unreliable scientific claims in litigation. The ATRA report points to 2023 updates to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which clarify that judges should carefully assess whether expert testimony is grounded in reliable scientific methods before it reaches a jury. Several states have already moved to align their evidentiary standards with these updated federal rules, and the report suggests that broader adoption of similar standards could help ensure courts evaluate scientific claims more consistently.
Ultimately, protecting public health and healthcare requires more than strong medicines and innovative treatments. It also requires maintaining trust in the scientific process itself. When public debate about medical risks is guided by sound evidence and corresponding regulation, patients are equipped to make informed decisions — and the health system works the way it was intended to.
Brenda Destro, Ph.D. served as the Acting Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from 2018-2021 and was previously a Senior Public Health Advisor to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP).
