Galileos revenge 1 gained in stant credibility in his speech quayle declared it is time to reject the notion that junk science is truly relevant evidence 2 since then the catchy phrase junk science has moved firmly into the common ar got 3 and the bush administration has followed through with propos. Much has been written about the litigation explosion in recent years including peter hubers liability the legal revolution and its consequences but huber a senior fellow at the manhattan institute uses his latest book galileos revenge junk science in the courtroom to explore one particularly important facet of the perversion of modern tort law what huber calls junk science . Galileos revenge junk science in the courtroom laurence r tancredi md jd author affiliations university of texas health science center at houston defending themselves against medical malpractice suits based on spurious scientific claims will readily identify with galileos revenge peter huber has produced a superb diatribe against . Galileos revenge junk science in the courtroom by huber peter w peter william 1952 galileos revenge documents this peculiarly american phenomenon showing how ancient rules of evidence do not discriminate between serious science and junk access restricted item true. This book is about bad science particularly bad medical science in the courtroom it contrasts good science the science of publication replication verification consensus and peer review with so called junk science identified by lack of rigour power to stir up fear bamboozlement and misguided certitude the book documents landmark legal cases in which manipulative charismatic