Nearly every American was taught the same six steps that serve as a fundamental building block to scientific education: Make an observation, ask a question, form a hypothesis, make a prediction based on the hypothesis, test the prediction, and use the results to make new hypotheses or new predictions.
…
Yet, a recent decision by a U.S. District Court judge to prohibit scientists from conducting an objective and unbiased research study on a specific chemical’s cancer-causing capability flies in the face of the principles of the scientific method and is further evidence of the growing disconnect between fact-based science and economic coercion in courtrooms across the United States.
It began with two significant—and absolutely contradictory—legal developments surrounding the use of glyphosate (the active ingredient in the popular herbicide Roundup), a chemical that has been extensively studied and widely used by commercial farmers and backyard gardeners for decades.
…
Bayer opted to pay more than $10 billion to settle claims that glyphosate had caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma …. [T]he hard truth is the majority of these funds will go to attorneys.
…
This a massive loss for science and for those who respect expertise in both the courts of law and public opinion. The decision has the potential to elevate emotion over objective evidence in the courtroom, a move that puts businesses and consumers with legitimate claims in limbo and at the discretion of bias.
