Synopses & Reviews
"An accessible, passionate indictment of the ignorance, opportunism and social indifference that enriched lawyers and a few plaintiffs, though the available scientific evidence was against them". -- New York Times Book Review Notable Books of 1996
In the early 1990s, sympathetic juries awarded huge damages to women claiming injury from silicone breast implants, leading to a $4.25 billion class-action settlement that still wasn't large enough to cover all the claims. Shockingly, rigorous scientific studies of breast implants have now shown that there is no significant link between breast implants and disease. Why were the courts and the public so certain that breast implants were dangerous when medical researchers were not? The answer to this question reveals important differences in the way science, the law, and the public regard evidence -- and not just in the breast implant controversy.
"An indispensable guide to the breast implant madness-litigation that will forever stand as a monument to the inability of our civil justice system to sort out latter-day Ptolemies from Galileos". -- Wall Street Journal
"(A) sober and rigorous examination of the controversy over silicone breast implants... an important statement, not just about silicone implants, but about other matters at the intersection of law, science, and opinion. (Dr. Angell's) book is... a warning that rationality, like much else in the fragile porcelain of society, can be weakened by lack of vigilance". -- New York Times
-- "Marcia Angell's outstanding book explains clearly and fairly the combination of greed, fear, ignorance, junk science, and media hype that created this national litigation nightmare. Everyoneinterested in the tort system, science, and medicine should heed the lessons that Dr. Angell teaches". -- Shirley M. Hufstedler, former U.S. Secretary of Education and former judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Review
"An indispensable guide to the breast implant madness--litigation that will forever stand as a monument to the inability of our civil justice system to sort out latter-day Ptolemies from Galileos." Wall Street Journal
Review
"[A] sober and rigorous examination of the controversy over silicone breast implants . . . an important statement, not just about silicone implants, but about other matters at the intersection of law, science, and opinion. [Dr. Angell's] book is . . . a warning that rationality, like much else in the fragile porcelain of society, can be weakened by lack of vigilance." New York Times
Review
"Marcia Angell's outstanding book explains clearly and fairly the combination of greed, fear, ignorance, junk science, and media hype that created this national litigation nightmare. Everyone interested in the tort system, science, and medicine should heed the lessons that Dr. Angell teaches." Shirley M. Hufstedler, former U.S. Secretary of Education
Synopsis
When the FDA banned silicone gel-filled breast implants in 1992, it was responding to mounting concerns that they caused autoimmune and connective tissue disease. The ban triggered a torrent of litigation, as women by the thousands sued breast-implant manufacturers. Sympathetic juries awarded huge damages, leading to a $4.25 billion class-action settlement that still wasn't large enough to cover all the claims. Shockingly, rigorous scientific studies of breast implants then began to show that there is no significant link between breast implants and disease. Why were the courts and the public so certain that breast implants were dangerous when medical researchers were not? The answer to this question reveals important differences in the way science, the law, and the public regard evidence--and not just in the breast-implant controversy. As our society becomes ever more dependent, at all levels, on science and technology, misconceptions about scientific evidence become an increasing danger to the public good--with consequences that extend far beyond the question of whether silicone gel-filled breast implants are safe.
Synopsis
In the early 1990s, sympathetic juries awarded huge damages to women claiming injury from silicone breast implants, leading to a $4.25 billion class-action settlement that still wasn't large enough to cover all the claims. Shockingly, rigorous scientific studies of breast implants have now shown that there is no significant link between breast implants and disease. Why were the courts and the public so certain that breast implants were dangerous when medical researchers were not? The answer to this question reveals important differences in the way science, the law, and the public regard evidence--and not just in the breast implant controversy.
About the Author
Marcia Angell is the executive editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.