> As a trial lawyer I've been involved in many
> complex medical malpractice cases that have
> dealt with arcane matters of medical science
> and difficult issues of causation. It is possible
> to make such matters understandable to a jury
> of lay persons, and least for purposes of
> establishing legal liability under American law.
> I haven't been following this case, but it sounds
> like either Merck's attorneys didn't do their
> job very well; or the jurors just disregarded
> Merck's expert testimony.
Detailed reports of the trial suggest strongly another alternative than the above "either, etc." and, at that, one at odds with the W.S.J.'s putative reporting of the case: that the jurors did not fail to understand and also did not "disregard" Merck's lawyers' expert witnesses but, rather, because of other compelling evidence in the case - Merck's own many internal documents to the effect that Merck's management new of and decided to try both to conceal and to misrepresent the company's own researchers' and others' findings about the adverse effects of Vioxx - here was good reason affirmatively to disbelieve those witnesses (again: not "disregard" them).
As a knowledgeable and well-experienced trial attorney, surely the above poster is aware of rules of evidence having to do with presumptions to the effect that if a jury finds that a party has deliberately misrepresented key facts at issue, it is entitled to conclude that the opposite of the misrepresentation is the fact provided only that there is other evidence in the case that supports such a conclusion (and in the Merck trial there was other such evidence presented).
Whether a decision setting aside the verdict or a reversal on appeal will occur on the grounds that we've seen "junk science" in action -- the slogan of the day preferred by "tort reformers" -- of course remains to be determined, as are anthropological and cultural studies addressed to the separate issue whether in an anti-intellectual/anti-science cultural/political environment (cf., of course, the so-called "debate" about "ID" and the ongoing massive propaganda to the effect that there isn't global warming, etc.) disregard of proffered scientific testimony ought be expected.