Day 256 - 04 Jun 96 - Page 69


     
     1        you were asked about -- I think what Mr. Rampton is asking
     2        about what you would say about the evidence cannot be
     3        considered sufficiently strong to be termed causal.
     4
     5   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, that is right, my Lord.
     6
     7   MR. JUSTICE BELL: I was trying to help you by pointing out that
     8        there is not necessarily a contradiction from that in the
     9        second part of that sentence.
    10        A.  I appreciate, your Honour, the explanation and
    11        I understand what you are saying, but even if we were to
    12        take the narrow view ----
    13
    14   Q.   Start afresh.  What do you say about the statement:  "The
    15        evidence cannot be considered sufficiently strong to be
    16        termed causal"?
    17        A.  First off, what I would say there is of course this is
    18        a statement of a committee.  As you probably are well
    19        aware, committees tend to take at least a common
    20        denominator, a sort of consensus of opinion that most
    21        everyone can agree to.
    22
    23        It says:"The evidence cannot be considered sufficiently
    24        strong to be termed causal". Well, the words are carefully
    25        chosen there to indicate that there is a possibility that
    26        there is causality, but that not everyone on that
    27        particular committee would have agreed that that evidence
    28        was sufficiently strong.  I have not functioned on these
    29        kind of committees for a number of different times and
    30        years.  These words are chosen fairly carefully just to
    31        make sure that everyone is on board, so to speak.  In
    32        science, I am sure you are aware, to use that word
    33        causality with a great deal of confidence is quite a
    34        statement to make, but cigarettes do not cause lung cancer
    35        either.
    36
    37   MR. RAMPTON:  My packet of cigarettes says that it does.  It
    38        says that smoking causes cancer.  Cigarettes do not, no.
    39        You have got to smoke them?
    40        A.  But my point is that in that particular case, the
    41        entire society in regulators and others, as suggested, the
    42        evidence is sufficiently persuasive to tell the public that
    43        statement.
    44
    45   Q.   That is a sensible statement, is it not?
    46        A.  I am using that a as an extreme example but the point
    47        is that if you really want to insist on causality, we have
    48        to make certain kinds of observation that generally are not
    49        possible.  We have to take this stuff, give it to someone
    50        and see if it does, and to see if it works in a certain way 
    51        and all the rest, so everybody is happy. 
    52 
    53   Q.   The difference is this, is it not, Professor.  You talked
    54        about consensus, which is why I am showing you these
    55        documents.  There is a consensus amongst scientists that
    56        with a high degree of probability at least, smoking
    57        cigarettes in any numbers causes cancer, is there not?
    58        A.  Yes.
    59
    60   Q.   There is no such consensus for the role of fat in the diet

Prev Next Index