First, the facts. Scientific experts often differ and the courts generally decide, with some skill, which to believe. But with spermicides like Ortho's there is no serious difference among experts. After reviewing some 20 epidemiological studies, an expert committee advised the Food and Drug Administration in 1983 that the preponderance of available evidence "indicates no association" between spermicides and birth defects.
How then could Judge Shoob have ruled otherwise? Despite the written evidence of the scientific literature, he focused on the real testimony given in his court, and says he "paid close attention to each expert's demeanor and tone." Ortho's witnesses included prominent epidemiologists but were gravely deficient in the demeanor department.
One had impressive credentials, Judge Shoob conceded yet "lacked credibility." Of another, the judge said "his overall demeanor and manner indicated a degree of bias." He cited objective grounds for doubting one main witness, who had not disclosed ...
