Fiber types, asbestos potency, and environmental causation: a peer review of published work and legal and regulatory scientific testimony.

Scientific evidence and analysis offered in litigation and public policy testimony have an important role in occupational and environmental health, but are not subject to peer review. Critique and commentary, attempts at reproduction of results, and review of data offered in such testimony is essential. Peer review of such testimony should become part of the domain of medical and scientific journals. This paper is an effort to peer review the use of certain scientific methods in tort litigation and in testimony before regulatory agencies. In this issue of IJOEH, Azuma et al. show that background asbestos exposures can be considered to have caused mesothelioma. In contrast, epidemiologic studies and testimony by Teta et al. and Price and Ware, and pathologic studies and testimony by Roggli and others, claim that background exposures are benign. These are fatally flawed because of methodological and analytic errors.