As a physician who has spent decades caring for patients and later had the privilege of serving as Secretary of Health and Human Services, I have seen firsthand how fragile medical progress can be. Breakthrough therapies and medical devices don’t happen by accident. They require years of research, substantial investment, and a regulatory environment grounded in sound science. When that foundation is weakened, patients ultimately pay the price.
Across the healthcare landscape, there is increasing concern that novel litigation strategies and tactics are being used to influence health and science policy through the courts rather than through evidence-based regulatory channels. One of the most concerning examples is the growing reliance on so-called “junk science” in civil litigation, especially in cases involving medical innovators.
A recently released report from the American Tort Reform Association sheds light on how this dynamic operates. But the larger issue extends well beyond any single study or lawsuit. What we are seeing is the emergence of a litigation ecosystem that can substitute advocacy-driven claims for scientific consensus, weaponizing uncertainty to pressure companies into settlements and, in the process, distorting public understanding of medical risk.
TYLENOL AUTISM LAWSUITS SHOW WHY JUDICIAL GATEKEEPING IS ESSENTIAL
Junk science is not simply flawed research. It is often science constructed for litigation with conclusions formed first and evidence assembled afterward. It may rely on cherry-picked data, unreplicated findings, or speculative hypotheses that would struggle to withstand scrutiny from, and many times contradict findings of institutions such as the Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, or Environmental Protection Agency. Yet once introduced in court, these claims can take on a powerful life of their own, amplified through expert testimony and coverage from media outlets that may lack the time or technical depth to distinguish rigorous evidence from persuasive rhetoric.
The consequences extend well beyond legal outcomes. When juries are presented with misleading scientific narratives, verdicts can impose massive liability disconnected from real-world evidence. That risk changes behavior.
Sustained litigation pressure can reshape entire therapeutic areas, even when regulators continue to affirm a product’s safety and effectiveness. Companies may scale back research initiatives, investors grow more cautious about funding early-stage therapies, and manufacturers reconsider whether to bring innovative but legally vulnerable products to the U.S. market at all. Over time, patients bear the cost through higher healthcare prices, fewer treatment options, and slower medical advancement.
At the same time, the rise of third-party litigation funding is adding an additional layer of pressure on medical innovators. Increasingly, investors with no connection to patient care or scientific research are financing lawsuits tied to medical products and therapies in exchange for a share of any settlement or verdict. While proponents argue this can expand access to the courts, it also introduces powerful financial incentives that may have little to do with public health or scientific evidence. When potential financial return becomes a primary driver, complex scientific questions can be reframed in ways that emphasize litigation strategy rather than medical reality.
Judges are not scientists, but they do play an important gatekeeping role. Standards governing expert testimony — including the clarified expectations under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 when it was amended in 2023 — are intended to help ensure that juries hear reliable, relevant evidence rather than speculation presented as fact. These safeguards exist not to favor one side or another, but to preserve the integrity of the fact-finding process, and it is imperative that they are enforced.
Still, legal standards alone cannot fully address the challenge. The broader issue is cultural as well as institutional. Scientific questions are best resolved through research, clinical trials, and rigorous regulatory review — not through adversarial proceedings designed to reward persuasion as much as precision. Policymakers should therefore remain attentive to how litigation tactics can undermine groundbreaking research and ultimately weaken America’s role as the global leader in medical innovation.
JUNK SCIENCE ON THE MENU: HOW ‘FAT STUDIES’ ENDANGERS PUBLIC HEALTH
For decades, the United States has been the world’s primary creator of life-saving drugs, breakthrough devices, and transformative therapies. However, that leadership depends on trust that evidence matters, that disagreement is settled through research rather than rhetoric, and that public health decisions are guided by data rather than financial incentives tied to litigation outcomes. Allowing junk science to shape legal and policy decisions threatens that foundation.
None of this argues for limiting legitimate legal recourse. Patients deserve accountability when harm occurs. Transparency and safety must remain paramount. But maintaining that balance requires vigilance against the misuse of science in ways that may inadvertently undermine the very advances patients rely on. Ensuring that science and not sensationalism guide both policy and litigation will help encourage responsible innovation and ultimately protect patients.
Dr. Tom Price, M.D., formerly served as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services