In the legal context, junk science is defined as evidence that is outside of mainstream scientific or medical views, Junk science does not have indicia of reliability and is not generally accepted.

Despite the lack of scientific reliability.

US courts, expert witnesses and juries are increasingly reliant on junk science in making causation decisions in complex medical liability cases.

Courts have accepted junk science even where reliable scientific evidence is available.

The United States silicone gel breast implant litigation is a prime example of this phenomenon.

The issue of whether silicone breast implants are associated with disease has been a controversial subject for scientists and physicians, an emotional issue for women who have breast implants, and a lucrative business for the lawyers and expert witnesses who are the proponents of junk science.

Junk science has provided to juries a quick and convenient explanation for claimed diseases or syndromes which have required years for reliable scientists to conclude are not related to breast implants.

The breast implant litigation highlights the often dramatic difference between decisions based upon junk science and decisions grounded in scientific method, fact and reality.

Recently, judges involved in the breast implant litigation have become concerned about the use of junk science in light of the growing body of legitimate scientific evidence that breast implants do not cause disease. (...)