Missouri Should Strengthen Protections Against Junk Science

A Missouri jury recently rejected claims that a specialized premature infant formula made by Mead Johnson and Abbott Laboratories caused a dangerous bowel disease, marking the latest verdict in a large wave of litigation involving products essential to premature nutrition. But the fact that these claims ultimately failed does not erase the consequences of allowing questionable litigation to proceed in the first place. A cascade of litigation against perfectly safe products has the same practical effect as regulation by bureaucrats. Legal costs are passed onto consumers, and producers are deterred from bringing promising products to market. It’s time to reform notoriously lax rules of evidence and restore the integrity of the judiciary.

The most recent case was brought by an Illinois mother who alleges her daughter developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and, in turn, suffered lifelong injuries following consumption of Mead Johnson Enfamil formula. However, health authorities and medical experts have emphasized that NEC is a multifactorial disease with causes that are not fully understood; available evidence has not established that specialized preterm formula causes NEC.

Despite the current state of the evidence, over the past year, thousands of lawsuits have been filed against Mead Johnson and Abbott Laboratories, many of them pending in state courts. These cases illustrate the enormous responsibility placed on judges and juries when proceedings require a deep understanding of complex scientific questions often delivered by expert witnesses.

Allowing expert testimony based on unreliable or unproven science to influence civil court cases can lead juries to make decisions based on claims that have not been adequately supported by sound scientific methods. Moreover, an expert’s credentials alone should not be enough to place a scientific conclusion before a jury. That science needs to be rigorously tested before it can figure into a jury’s decision.

That is precisely why judges have a critical responsibility to serve as gatekeepers and keep misleading statements and testimony away from jurors.Federal Rule of Evidence 702 does exactly that by establishing guidelines that empower judges to serve as gatekeepers of untrustworthy evidence in federal court. Rule 702 became even more powerful when it was amended in 2023, further establishing a judge’s gatekeeping responsibility and barring expert testimony that does not meet sound science standards. The revisions prevent experts from overstating their conclusions and require them to establish, more likely than not, that their testimony meets all reliability criteria.

This issue is timely in Missouri, as state lawmakers have considered legislation to more closely align the state’s expert-evidence standards with the amended federal rule. This year, Senator Jamie Burger (R-27) and Representative Barry Hovis (R-146) introduced legislation to address the issue of junk science being used in Missouri’s courtrooms. The proposals stipulate that parties seeking to introduce expert testimony must first demonstrate that the testimony is based on reliable evidence and sound scientific methods. It reinforces the responsibility of trial judges to assess the reliability of that testimony before it reaches a jury.

Additionally, the Missouri Supreme Court was given an opportunity earlier this year to provide greater clarity in Hanshaw v. Crown Equipment Corp., a product liability case involving injuries allegedly sustained while operating a forklift. The case revolved around whether the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony met Missouri’s standards for reliable expert evidence, after the trial court excluded his opinions due to concerns about his qualifications, testing, and methodology.

In February, the court upheld the exclusion of that testimony, finding that the expert’s conclusions were not supported by sufficiently reliable methodology. The holding highlights the critical role judges play in evaluating expert evidence before it reaches a jury. It also underscores the importance of Missouri’s courts updating their standards to align with Rule 702, which would help courts confront dubious scientific testimony across cases.

A number of states have already adopted or are considering standards consistent with Rule 702. Jurors should decide cases based on reliable evidence, not conclusions dressed up as science simply because they are delivered by a self-styled “expert.” Missouri lawmakers have an opportunity to strengthen judicial safeguards by ensuring courts consistently apply rigorous standards to expert testimony before it ever reaches the jury.

Ross Marchand is the executive director of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.