But to make intelligent decisions the courts must rely on scientifically sound evidence. Unfortunately, Cornwell fails to examine critically either the available scientific data or the evidence actually introduced at trial. Although he gives passing mention to an article by a Harvard Medical School psychiatrist who reported that six of his patients experienced strong suicidal ideation while on Prozac, and to several other incidents of patients who committed acts of violence while on Prozac, anecdotal evidence alone will not do. Because products liability law is concerned with the product rather than the manufacturer's conduct, data that would help determine whether Prozac is unreasonably dangerous would generally be admissible even if it were collected after the incident in question. Indeed, one of the great benefits of the products liability system is that it not only uses but helps create scientific knowledge.
Litigation drives research.
Much of what we know about risks associated with Bendectin and Agent Orange, for instance, was learned after, and in large part because, they became the subject of litigation. But if the system is to work properly, courts must require scientifically sound evidence. This is important both to insure fairness and to promote the public policy objectives of the system. Neither the Kentucky court nor John Cornwell seems to have given this sufficient thought. Carl T. Bogus, an associate professor at the Roger Williams University School of Law, writes frequently about products liability.