The AMA encourages physicians to recognize their ethical duty as learned professionals to assist in the administration of justice by serving as experts. According to the Federal Judicial Center, physicians and other medical experts represent the largest proportion of expert witnesses testifying in at least half of all federal civil trials. Some expert witnesses develop theories of medicine or causation that are not sufficiently grounded in medical science. Generally, there is an economic incentive to do so. Income derived from expert witness testimony can be substantial.
Economic incentives can color the nature of the physician expert's testimony.
Despite ethical guidelines and judicial discretion to exclude testimony that is not scientifically valid, junk science still finds its way into court through unchecked testimony of physicians. David L. Chadwick and Henry F. Krous, demonstrates that physicians as professionals have tremendous responsibilities, as do the trial judges, to ensure that scientifically valid information is considered in the judicial process. The article presents several examples wherein physicians misquoted standard journals and texts, made false statements, and deliberately omitted important facts and knowledge as it pertained to the expert opinion offered. Physicians who engage in such conduct lead to poor decision making by our judges and juries. Expert witness testimony should be an objective resource to these persons.