He wasn't the boss -- his client was the boss -- he had a duty to work for the client.
It was the other side's duty to argue against him if his science was baloney. He had no duty to argue against his own client's interest.If he had "pulled back" by not tugging at emotional heartstrings, that would have been unethical.

That's the adversarial system.

Yet another reason for me to dislike Edwards, in addition to his appalling sexist response to Clinton's so called "breakdown."

He's a Mormon. He's one big ball of ideology.

Just saying.

He's a Mormon. He's one big ball of ideology.

Though it's true he probably doesn't feel burdened by it. That's not to say that he isn't influenced by it.

Just saying.

In what way are Romney's science credentials "muddled"?  Does anyone not working for his campaign have anything good to say about him?

(Even Ehlers' testimonial stinks of empty platitude.)

Nelson sat on a panel of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that in 2003 found that most cases of cerebral palsy are not caused at birth.

But they didn't know this 22 years ago, right? Is that Edwards' (or anyone's) fault?

Unfair to use Edwards' courtroom work against him.

He wasn't the boss -- his client was the boss -- he had a duty to work for the client.
It was the other side's duty to argue against him if his science was baloney. He had no duty to argue against his own client's interest.If he had "pulled back" by not tugging at emotional heartstrings, that would have been unethical.

Correct.

Given that he took the case, it would have been unethical.  We're not talking about a public defender with court-assigned clients here, though.  We can make legitimate judgements about lawyers who accept (or worse, pursue) civil cases built on bad or fraudulent science.

Yibba @9 makes a much better point about using a 2003 study to criticize a 1985 case.

Yibba and Cleve--
Valid points. The whole article on Edwards started by noting that a surprising number of scientists and physicians absolutely ruled out voting for Edwards. The misrepresentation of science was the most common reason.

I can understand that stance. Work to which I had contributed was misrepresented during the stem cell debates. It's infuriating. Arguably Bush's actions--misrepresenting scientific research to help his supporters--would be justified with your logic.

Still, with that all said, I still like Edwards as a candidate. I just find Obama or Clinton to be better for American Science.

The content you requested requires a AAAS member subscription to this site or Science Pay per Article purchase. To find out what content you currently have access to - view your access rights. If you would like to recommend that your institution subscribe to this content, please visit our Recommend a Subscription page.

Seriously: The Professor is tall and thin like Obama, and they use similar hand gestures. But mostly they share the same deep voice. Don't they?

Al Gore.

As if you didn't know.

The only quote on the front page of the report is from a Romney supporter, but the body of the report says

Senator Hillary Clinton's speech on the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik was the most detailed examination of science policy that any presidential candidate has offered to date.

It's therefore not surprising that actual scientists have been praising her focus on science.