You're watching FJTN, the Federal Judicial Television Network. The Federal Judicial Center presents Science in the Court Room, a series of programs for judges on science and scientific evidence. Program Six, Dowbert Issues in Toxic Tort Cases, a discussion moderated by the Honorable Fern M. Smith, Director of the Federal Judicial Center. Hello and thank you for joining us for the sixth program in our series, Science in the Court Room. In this program, we'll address issues judges are likely to encounter as they perform their gatekeeping function in toxic tort cases. By now, I'm sure you're all quite familiar with the trilogy of Supreme Court cases on the admissibility of expert testimony, Dowbert, Joiner, and Kumho Tire. And so we won't spend time today reviewing the facts and holdings of those cases. Instead, we'll focus on how best to apply them, and particularly, Dowbert, in the very specific context of a toxic tort case involving epidemiology and toxicology evidence. Joining me for the discussion are Judge William W. Schwarzer of the Northern District of California. Attorney Elizabeth Cabraser, partner with the firm of Leif Cabraser, Hyman and Bernstein in San Francisco. Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein of the Western District of Washington. And Attorney Nathan Schachtman, a partner with the firm McCarter & English in Philadelphia. Most of you already know judges Rothstein and Schwarzer, but you may not know attorneys Cabraser and Schachtman. They have extensive experience in toxic tort and other complex litigation, and we're pleased to have them with us today. Welcome. As a springboard for our discussion, we'll be using an abridged version of a hypothetical toxic tort case originally developed by professors Margaret Berger of Brooklyn Law School and Diane Zimmerman of New York University Law School. The full version of the hypothetical with discussion questions is included in the reference materials for this program posted on the Center's DCN site. Here, then, is a synopsis of the case. Plaintiff, Mrs. Jones, files a diversity action against Qualcomm Manufacturing Company for wrongful death. The claim results from Mr. Jones' exposure to Qualcomm 43, a chemical released into the Blue River by the company as a byproduct of its manufacturing operations. Mrs. Jones brings the action as executor of Mr. Jones' estate. The complaint states that Mr. Jones contracted liver cancer and died as a result of his exposure to Qualcomm 43 in the drinking water of the family home located on the banks of the Blue River. In its answer, defendant admits that its plant is 10 miles up river from Plaintiff's property, that Qualcomm 43 is a byproduct of its manufacturing process and that small amounts of Qualcomm 43 have been discharged into the Blue River for many years. It denies that Mr. Jones' liver cancer was caused by Qualcomm 43. Plaintiff will proffer the testimony of two experts, Dr. Epidemiologist and Dr. Toxicologist, on the issue of causation. With that beginning, let's start by considering a basic question about the role of the trial court as gatekeeper. Judge Schorzer, let me ask you this. Assuming a toxic tort like this one, where you know that there are going to be dowbert issues raised at some point or the other, do you wait for the attorneys to raise those issues or do you think it's the role of the court, Sue Espani, to get right into it? I think it's very important that the judge come to grips with the issues early in the case. So the process of issue definition should begin at the first conference and particularly the definition of issues that involve scientific expertise and expert evidence. It may well be that the judge would be intimidated by the subject matter of the case, but shouldn't be. And the judge should insist that the lawyers explain the subject matter and the issues and the science involved in plain language so that he will be sure to understand it. The judge should consider at that point what areas require expert evidence and should consider the number of, limiting the number of experts who will testify. There is a tendency to overuse experts and often generally will be sufficient to have one expert per scientific discipline. At this point the judge should establish procedures for compliance with Rule 26A2C, that is the expert disclosures. And the reports that experts need to furnish is a part of the disclosure of critical importance because they will establish what the testimony will be a trial, they'll limit the evidence, and they'll ensure that the parties prepare adequately for the trial. At the second conference the parties should be prepared to identify the proposed experts and a schedule and program should be set up for the discovery directed experts. This is a point too at which the court should consider whether any protective orders will need to be entered and of course at this point the judge should find out whether there will be objections to any of the expert testimony implicating procedures under Rule 104A and leading into a dober type hearing. This procedure that I've described briefly is set out in some detail in the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence published by the Center. Okay. Judge Rothstein, let's assume just by coincidence you've got a case on your docket almost identical to the one Judge Schwarzers handling and you've gotten to the stage where you've had these preliminary conferences and now the defendant has filed a motion to exclude certain testimony and you've decided that some type of a hearing might be necessary. What are the mechanics of that hearing? Well, the mechanics of the hearing to a large extent will be determined by the complexity of the issues involved. Not every one of these cases needs a full-blown hearing. There are some cases that can be decided on affidavits. The problem with affidavits is that often they take as much time to review as it would take to hold a regular hearing with the experts testifying one for each side. The preferred technique would be to have an in-court hearing with the experts testifying. The advantages of this is that the court can see and evaluate the experts and the most important thing is the court has the ability to ask questions and in these complex scientific areas that is exactly what the court should be doing. Again, I would emphasize that if there's anything the court finds difficult to understand, the question should spur the experts to speak in plain English. Now, it's important that before you have the hearing the issues be clearly defined so that the experts are meeting and discussing the same issues. Of course, this will happen because you've had superb pre-trial along the line just as Swazer had mentioned. Discovery will be completed. At least as to the experts. If you don't have Discovery completed your hearing is going to turn into just an opportunity to give each side a chance to do what they should have done on expert depositions. Are there going to be cases where these motions to exclude expert testimony are accompanied at the same time by a motion for summary judgment? I would say in most cases, yes. If it's not exactly filed simultaneously you know that it's coming. If the motion to exclude is granted. If the motion to exclude is granted because you cannot underestimate the importance of these hearings. If experts are excluded as a result of these hearings often that's case-determinative. Nobody can go forward in a complex scientific case without an expert. So in essence what you're doing really is making a determination of what will ultimately be a summary judgment question.  In that role in a complex case in particular are you going to push for an evidentiary hearing or would you prefer to see it decided on affidavits or what? Well given the near inevitability of Daubart challenges in complex cases I would prefer a live hearing whether it's a formal or informal hearing with the court so that the court can see and hear my experts and vice versa because that gives me an opportunity to see how my experts are going to perform in a courtroom setting where the case is at stake and it also gives me an opportunity to see how the judge reacts not just to my experts but to the theories and to the issues that are involved so that I know the extent to which the court is familiar with the issues should become more familiar wants to become more familiar before it's too late in the case on papers I don't think that the court gets the full benefit of what the experts have to say and the lawyers don't get the full benefit of interaction with the court at that stage. Mr. Shackman in this particular case this is your motion to exclude. Now are you going to try to convince the judge that a hearing on paper is sufficient or do you agree with Ms. Cabraiser and Judge Rothstein that usually an evidentiary hearing is best? No, I agree with them that a hearing in this case is the best thing and I'm going to push for it by pointing out that there are substantial questions of reliability and fit that aren't just minor problems but they really threaten the correctness or validity of the experts' opinions. I will of course before asking for the hearing filed after David's prior testimony briefs with a close analysis of the proffered experts' opinions to show why there are reliability and fit questions and I'm going to emphasize that the court, as Ms. Cabraiser suggested needs to eyeball the expert and interact with the expert and make the expert answer specific questions so the judge can do his or her job as a gatekeeper and as Judge Rothstein mentioned there's going to be a motion for summary judgment it may be presumptuous to file it at the same time as the Daubert Challenge but it's coming and I think that's all the more reason why the judge should hold a hearing and in some cases with Viva Voce testimony. Okay, well clearly there are certain areas where both sides of the dispute and the court agree on what is usually the best procedure but let's move on and assume Judge Schwerzer that following expert testimony there is a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant claiming that no genuine issue of material fact exists with regard to causation and at the same time the defendant has moved to exclude all of plaintiff's expert witnesses on the grounds that their testimony has no scientific validity. Now you're a judge not a scientist what does a scientific validity mean to the court? Well Daubert tells us that an expert's opinion to be valid must be grounded in scientific knowledge that is it has to be grounded in methods and procedures of science not subjective beliefs and unsupported speculation. Daubert sets out some non-exclusive criteria for testing scientific validity such as whether the theory has been or can be tested whether it's been peer reviewed whether it's been published whether there's an established rate of error and whether it has general acceptance in the scientific community. But scientific validity must not be confused with the sufficiency of evidence which remains a jury question. The three cases in the trilogy that you've mentioned are illustrative of the kinds of expert evidence that have failed to pass muster as being scientifically valid. In Daubert for example the evidence failed to include any pre-litigation or independent research by the experts and the work of the experts that have never been published are subjected to peer review. In the Joyner case the testimony of the expert evidence consisted of having infant mice ingest massive doses of PCB to try to show that the plaintiff's exposure to PCB caused his lung cancer. That was rejected because the mice were infant mice and not adult mice and because they contracted a different kind of cancer. And finally in the Kumho case the tire expert was unable to say how long this tire had actually been on the car and that he was offered to show that the tire was defective when it left the factory and he relied entirely on its objective mode of analysis which was not supported by any papers or other expert work. So these are illustrations of expert evidence that failed to pass muster under Daubert. Daubert does raise an interesting question about the admissibility of forensic techniques that have been used for many years but really would fail the test of scientific validity such as handwriting analysis and fingerprint identification. So that remains an open question under Daubert. Well it's important Judge Schwarz for all of us to remember that ever since Kumho tire it's clear that these principles and problems apply to all kinds of cases not just toxic tort or other cases involving hard sciences. So we'll be back shortly to discuss those and other issues. Let's move on and assume that we've gotten to the stage where the court has decided in fact to hold an evidentiary hearing. And the plaintiff's first witness is Dr. Epidemiologist who will testify that based on a study she's reviewed she has concluded in fact that Qualchem 43 causes liver cancer in humans. Ms. Cabraiser how deeply do you feel a court should probe to examine whether or not the expert has in fact followed each of the protocols underlying the methodology used by the expert and in order to assess the reliability of the opinion. The party opposing the study or the expert is going to make sure that the court has an opportunity to probe the methodology and every aspect of the study and that's become the battleground. But I think it's important to remember as Judge Bechtel said in the orthopedic bone screw case a case in which the plaintiffs were trying everything they could think of to keep out a particular epidemiological study. It was a cohort study and the court said there's no such thing as a perfect epidemiological study. Most studies even though we've had Daubert with us for a number of years now are not conducted or designed with litigation in mind. So from a retrospective view every study is going to have its flaws. Some studies will have many flaws but despite those flaws the study still may be quite useful to assist the trial of fact. So the court is not acting as an Olympic judge grading with 10, 9, 8 a study that may be quite flawed even flawed to the extent that its accuracy might be impugned is still admissible to assist the trial of fact particularly if there are going to be other studies that form the basis of either the plaintiffs or the defendant's expert opinions. Let's see if that's another area where you and Mr. Shackman agree. Mr. Shackman, you're the Ms. Cabraser's opponent in this case and one of the things you know about this study is that in fact is the only one that's out there that assumes or deals with the effects of Qualchem 43 on humans. Does the fact that there's a solo study alone affect the liability of that study? Well it does and putting aside the obvious flaws in the study, the fact that we have a single study itself is very problematic for Dr. Epidemiologist's testimony. There are generally accepted criteria by which Epidemiologic assessments of causation are judged and in fact they're set out in the reference manual and are sometimes described as the Bradford Hill criteria. Two of those criteria are the strength and consistency of the association and here we, putting aside the weakness of the association, we only have one study so it can't be consistent with any other studies. There are very few bull's eyes in Epidemiology and sometimes a study which shows an association is met with a second or third study which shows no association. There's no presumption of correctness so that makes it very problematic and we should keep in mind that there's been a real proliferation of journals and much of what gets published nowadays is weak and equivocal in terms of the association shown and it can't rule out bias and confounding and therefore we can't reach a judgment of causation and this one study is not a reliable basis to make a judgment of causal association. Okay. Judge Schwerzer, let's keep going and from your standpoint let's assume that there has been one or more departures from generally accepted procedures in conducting this one available study. Now, Daubert talks about general acceptance and it doesn't it isn't the sole criteria of opinions anymore but how much departure from generally accepted procedures is acceptable before a judge becomes worried about the admissibility of evidence. Well, as you say the essential holding of Daubert is that general acceptance is no longer necessary prerequisite admissibility of scientific evidence under rule 702 and that's a change from what the law used to be but general acceptance still remains a relevant factor because it's likely that it will be intertwined or reflected in other indicia of validity such as peer review, publication testing and information about the rate of error. There's a distinction between general acceptance of a theory on one hand and general acceptance of procedures for conducting particular study. So in the latter case, general procedures general acceptance of a procedure will probably reflect experience of the scientific community in achieving accuracy and reliability. It's of interest to look at what the court said in Kumho that the objective of the gatekeeping requirement is that an expert employ in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor and the characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field so a departure from generally accepted procedures may be extremely damaging and probably fatal to a finding of validity. Miss Cabraser, we all hear publicity or information at times about studies that have been funded by a particular party for purposes really of litigation, typically class action litigation. Does the fact that a party that proffers a study has funded it in fact, is that a reliability issue or do you think that's more a question for the jury to decide the weight of that evidence? Ultimately it's going to be a jury issue and I think it's important that jurors know and they will know where studies come from who has sponsored them and who has funded them. In the pre-trial stage I do believe that should come out not only because it may evidence bias but I think it is an indicator that the protocol and the methodology ought to be subjected to closed scrutiny as it certainly will be by opposing counsel and it should be to the court that said I think it's important to understand that although this has been a very controversial issue and it's particularly an issue for plaintiffs because most studies that are privately funded are not funded by the plaintiff's bar or a particular plaintiff's group or plaintiff's lawyer, they're funded by manufacturers and industries they're funded in the course of seeking to obtain FDA approval if it's a pharmaceutical or a medical device and while that type of a study is less common in the course of toxic substances they do occur and those studies have a purpose, money is paid and money is spent for a particular purpose in mind and it's not necessarily pure science we don't have a government that sponsors a vast array of pure science studies although the government does fund some and I think we have to accept the fact that it's not a perfect world and biases can creep in because of the object of the study there have even been cases where studies have been suppressed by their sponsors when the researchers were not reaching the conclusions and the results that the funding entity preferred and that does happen and I think it's part of the adversary procedure at the pretrial stage to bring that out is that going to render a study probably not unless there is a severe flaw in the study itself but it's something the trier of fact would want to know I would think so and Judge Rothstein at this stage you know it's still in your hands and we hear from people on the panel here there's no such thing as a perfect study things may be funded by parties there's what's a poor judge to do a poor trial judge to do are you going to look for the perfect error free study and keep hoping it comes up or is there some formula in Daubert that tells you how many errors are okay before you still let it go forward well I suppose one can dream but the fact of the matter even judges even judges well I think we are perpetually hoping somebody will give us bright lines somewhere but this is just another case where that isn't going to happen the truth of the matter is it's virtually impossible to design a completely and totally error free study error in studies often result from built in biases in the design of the study everyone in the course of speaking just now has mentioned bias in a study and what the judge will be called upon in the course of the hearing to assess is how much error there is in the study and how much bias there has been and whether that bias has been so substantial that it's leading to a totally incorrect outcome thus making the study worthless the important thing is to determine the bias and by determining the bias it is often possible to determine the extent of the error that has crept into the study once the bias is identified the specific type of bias then the court can determine whether it is exaggerating the association that the study claims to be proving whether it's diluting that association maybe even masking it entirely there are different types of bias one of the types is conceptual bias which means that the person who is designing the study is asking the wrong question to begin with and that will really lead to serious error throughout the study as it's done there can be something called systematic bias which is basically error in the selection of the subjects of the study either for the control or for the actual subjects of the study themselves and again there can be what's called population bias which is the fact that the sample size may not be adequate and you're getting skewed results because you're looking at such a small sample size the judge will get help in determining the degree of error and the type of error and that help usually comes from opposing counsel and opposing counsel's expert and opposing counsel's cross examination and that will be the way in which the court usually will be led to the error but the assessment of the degree of error and how much the error really contributes to either a need to just disregard the study entirely it's going to be another judgment call for the court Mr. Shackman is it true that more often than not if there has been a party funded study it's going to be have been funded by the defendant and if so does that do you feel that that puts you somehow in no pun intended a defensive posture about the studies you're presenting well assuming that the study is exculpatory it really shouldn't be relevant to the issue of whether the challenged expert here or plaintiff's expert has offered reliable evidence and generally I disagree with Ms. Cabraser that the assessment of funding or sponsorship is a proper inquiry for the Daubert review it certainly is an appropriate thing to be taken up in discovery and it may be appropriate at the time of course examination at trial if we get there but it's not really calculated to lead to revealing a different kind of bias there's an ambiguity in that term we're talking about systematic bias or scientific bias which is described in some detail in the reference manual and that's different from the kind of bias by pointing to who sponsored or funded a particular study so no I don't think that I have to be defensive about sponsoring studies and in my experience I have found that sometimes secretively plaintiffs and plaintiffs counsel have funded studies themselves you've mentioned a couple of times I wasn't planning on a commercial but you've mentioned the scientific the manual on scientific evidence is that something you read for purposes of this panel or is that a tool that lawyers in fact use in these cases well the second edition just came out but the first edition which was out in 1994 has become mandatory reading for anyone who practices in this area of the law and I've had occasion to submit a copy with my briefs in support of the Daubert application okay thank you and it's widely available for many publishers that's correct that happy note we will return shortly let's turn now to the testimony of the plaintiff second witness doctor toxicologist as we consider the question of fit or relevance of proffered scientific evidence Judge Swarza you know that Daubert also requires that the court inquire into whether or not the proffered testimony will assist the trier of fact is it relevant or does it fit the pertinent issues in the case what things should the court be looking at in determining whether there's a fit between the evidence and the issues that are before the trier of fact or will be well as you say scientific evidence may be entirely valid but not necessarily relevant to the case the crucial question is whether the expert evidence is sufficiently tied to the facts of the case so it will help the jury decide the factual issues in the case that's really the second prong of rule 702 so in toxic tort cases that will often involve the question of specific causation and the Daubert case is an example in that case the plaintiffs offered circumstantial evidence from experts that Bendectin caused birth defects in animals that its chemical structure was similar to other birth defect causing agents and that Bendectin increased the risk of birth defects but that evidence failed the fit test because it didn't prove it was not probative of the issue in the case that is whether the plaintiffs birth defects were caused by Bendectin so the evidence that it increased the risk of birth defects was not relevant unless it also established a relative risk sufficiently high so as to make it more likely than not that the ingestion of Bendectin was the cause of plaintiff's defects so where the evidence only establishes the possibility of a link as in the Daubert case and not the probability it doesn't meet the test to fit Judge Rothstein let's assume that in this case Dr. Toxicologist has rested his opinion on an animal study and in particular one that where he concludes that exposing animals to very high doses of Qualchem 43 is associated with liver cancer or take it further even that it causes liver cancer in animals is that an issue of fit and if so how good a fit does it have to be in most animal studies the dosage that's administered to the animal subjects is very different from the exposure that humans will have had in the actual case take for example the case here if one goes back to the full-fledged original study not the version that we've used here in this program you will see that the mice were exposed to approximately 125 times the dosage that the plaintiff would have received over a lifetime the rat subjects again in the original you can see were exposed to very, very high doses so these are the issues that constantly come up in a toxicology study and the first issue the validity of interspecies extrapolation that is from animals to humans depends on the biological plausibility of applying the test on the animals to reach conclusions about causations in humans and this in turn depends on such matters as the state of knowledge about the pathology of the disease and how that pathology carries out in the mechanism of the particular species in other words is it a similar organ to that found in human beings is the organ function similar to that in human beings is the chemical transfer similar to that in human beings is the immunity to it what is the similarity between the particular species being used and how can you extrapolate from that to humans the other issue the appropriate dose response relationship and what is the proper relationship to use when you're extrapolating from the species that is the subject of the experiment to humans is a very, very complicated one it will be different in case to case and it's very important that the court make sure that the expert explains in great detail to the court how that dose relationship was arrived at if that can't be done if you can't get a clear answer to either of these questions it could cast out on the validity of applying the entire study to humans but in answer to your question it is a matter of fit ultimately that it does come down to does this study fit in this case and I guess along with making sure that the expert and the lawyer speaking plain English is the admonition to the judges that I some advice I received when I first went on the bench is don't be afraid to ask what you think may be stupid questions so judges have a responsibility to keep probing and asking questions until you do understand and you can't be shy you have to recognize that there's no shame in saying I don't understand these issues because the fact of the matter is they're very complicated issues and one should probe well never having met a shy federal judge will go on and ask Ms. Cabraser this Ms. Cabraser you just associated into this case so it's not hasn't been designed and organized as well as you would have done but they told me it was a great case I'm sure they did but in the meantime you get in and you discover that your epidemiologist has one study and your toxicologist only has this one animal study are you going to get to a jury do you think and if so why should you get to a jury because in part because I think there's a tendency to over rely on epidemiological studies and we have to recognize that for most substances there won't be epidemiological studies they're long term studies they're expensive they're usually not designed for purposes of litigation there's not time to conduct one if you've got looming litigation and so the advantage of toxicological studies is they can be done more economically they can be done more quickly and they are done through extrapolation and the question there is is the extrapolation proper and while judges and lawyers and juries are uncomfortable with extrapolation scientists are not so I'd want an expert that could explain the validity of that animal study because I'm probably going to rely more on the toxicological study and the toxicologist as my expert and there's one more thing that I would want to do Qualchem has a plant on the blue river and I would want to see whether there is an occupational toxicologist or a workplace physician that has conducted studies of the workers there in terms of their exposure because regulatory agencies are concerned with workplace exposure to chemical substances and there may be a lot of useful information there there may be a study in discovery I would certainly want to find out if there are medical records that are kept in terms of treating and observing exposure levels to workers at the plant and that's going to be a very rich source of data if I can find it and finally because both epidemiology and toxicology usually deal with generic causation I still have to put additional pieces of the puzzle in to get a fit I have to deal with a treating physician or an examining physician who may be able to give a differential diagnosis and rule out other factors such as Mr. Jones medical history his family medical history his possible exposure to other substances if he's had a disease in the past such as hepatitis B that can impact the liver in later life I would certainly want to be able to show the jury that he doesn't have any of those factors confounding factors and they can all be ruled out so I'm looking at a combination of experts who are going to interrelate so that the reminder of fact has many different pieces of the puzzle that it can put together to determine causation okay now Mr. Shackman let's assume it's your lucky month and the Daubert hearing is held before miscobraser associates in and so you have a less or an income not I don't want to say incompetent but a less prepared advocate then miscobraser is and so we have all of these associated experts at the hearing there is only the toxicologist and the epidemiologist is this study this animal study going to pass the fit test and should it be admissible no I think it's still fourth down in miles to go whether you look at the toxicologist in isolation or with the epidemiologist neither alone or together have presented admissible testimony that's reliable and fit in this case there are several leaps of faith here on the epidemiology side we have a case control study which by the way doesn't require a long term follow up it's something that can be done relatively quickly whereas an animal study does require one and a half or two years of follow up on the rats but the epidemiology study whatever we think of it in isolation isn't a reliable basis for the conclusion that there's general causation in this case and the toxicology have evidence involves several leaps of faith we've already heard about the interspecies extrapolation and we know that rats are different from humans and in fact sometimes rats are different from mice and we don't have a concordance among rodents so that it illustrates how different different species are and how they react differently to different chemicals and then we have the extrapolation from very high doses to the very low doses that were involved in this sort of environmental exposure case exposures at the factory are not really going to help us understand the effects of low doses which sometimes have protective effects as opposed to just smaller effects than the high doses so I'm not saying that toxicology is not important it sometimes helps us understand the mechanisms or the toxicokinetics it is used frequently in regulatory affairs where people have to come up with hypothetical risk assessments which are based on many assumptions but those aren't relevant here and they're not going to be helpful to a jury in this case. Is your opinion about fit going to change if doctor toxicologist testifies that Qualchem 43 is in fact does in fact cause cancer in humans or are you going to insist or try to insist that the showing be made that it caused cancer in this particular human. So you're asking me to concede general causation and focus on specific causation Well I'm asking you to at least concede that there is testimony to general causation No we wouldn't concede specific causation it's very much part of our application in this case because there's nothing that will allow us to make the attribution of Mr. Jones's liver cancer to the exposure to Qualchem 43 in this case there are some particular issues that we'd have to look at such as is there an appropriate latency between first exposure and the manifestation of his disease and whether you could rule out other known causes such as alcoholism and cirrhosis of the liver and hepatitis B and C but the problem is that most of the cases of liver cancer don't have known causes so differential diagnosis is not going to allow you to rule it out and ultimately what you have in cases such as this is simply a naked statistical process of causation based upon a relative risk assessment from an epidemiologic study and the courts have said in that particular case and for instance Judge Jones' decision in Hall against Baxter Health Care is an example that unless you have more than a doubling of the relative risk you can't make the attribution in a reliable way in a particular case so it's not at all conceding Judge Schwerzer Dowbert involved a situation that was relatively easy in that the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community was that Bendectin did not in fact cause birth limb defects how should a court handle a case however and there are many of them where there is a fair amount of conflicting scientific evidence as to the toxicology or epidemiology what do you do in those ambiguous situations well in the end the court has to remember that the resolution of conflicting testimony is a matter for the jury to decide so what the court should do in a case where there are conflicting pieces of expert evidence is to examine each one standing on its own in the light of the Dowbert Trilogy the fact that experts appear on both sides of an issue of scientific evidence may well indicate that a case can be made for the validity and perhaps the relevance for each side's theories now where the testimony involves a newly developing field in which the orthodoxy has not yet been established the court needs to take care particular care that what goes to the jury is reliable in the sense that the work has been done with professional rigor but contrary to what some people may believe Dowbert does not put an end to the battle of experts in the courtroom okay thank you and we will return shortly with some conclusions I think one of the things that all of us would agree on at this point is that the crux of this issue is really how can judges best meet their obligation to assess the trustworthiness or reliability of scientific evidence without usurping the jury's role as the trier of fact and the arbiter of credibility Judge Rothstein where do you see that line well it is one of the most difficult lines to draw part of the background of the Dowbert case is important to take into consideration one of the factors that was involved was the introduction of junk science into the courtroom when that happens not only may the case outcome or the individual case be wrong but it may very well hold the entire system up to look bad in the eyes of the public so the court was mindful of that and did intend the gatekeeping role to be taken seriously and once one takes the gatekeeping role seriously become very clear that it may in fact be a case dispositive ruling therefore may be the end of everything that happens so on the other hand once the decision is made that the judge will be gatekeeper that must be limited to only ruling on admissibility judge must be very very careful not to intrude on the province of the jury and the issue is only admissibility testimony as to whether causation is more likely than not and the given case is stepping into the role of the jury Judge Schwarzer these lines are not bright and they're difficult to walk do you see the role of the judge differently than Judge Rothstein does? No I agree with what has just been said and I think it's well for the judge to remind herself from time to time that she's not to decide whether she's an expert or the other but to remain focused on methodology rather than on credibility this fancy new fangled term of gatekeeper is really analogous to what judges traditionally do in terms of passing on whether the foundation for evidence has been laid sufficiently only in a new and difficult and complicated context just to take a homely example a judge sitting on a drunk driving test must pass on the challenge to testimony of an expert on the test to which a blood sample was submitted what the judge has to do is to consider whether the sample was handled according to established methodology that there were no mistakes and no mishandling took place but if the test passes a muster of methodology then whether the defendant was driving under the influence is a question Miss Cabraser and Mr. Schachman you have both tried cases around the country do you find that judges understand where their role stops and where it's time to turn it over to the jury Miss Cabraser? I have to say not always I think the Daubert decision had an unintended consequence most things do but in Daubert I think one message that some judges received which was not transmitted is that it is the judge's job to suspect the scientific or expert evidence of one side or another and reserve special skepticism for that evidence because it is scientific evidence but as Judge Schwerzer pointed out Daubert was simply trying to level the playing field to prevent judges who might be overawed or intimidated by science from failing to subject that potential evidence to the same type of scrutiny that is reserved for all other evidence in the courts and I think that's the message that has to come out because the purpose of the Daubert and its progeny is to facilitate a battle of the real experts and despite the cries of junk science to Daubert I think it's important to remember that neither one side nor the other is the province of so-called junk science and it's very important particularly when there are unfamiliar methodologies or cutting edge science or great controversy that the purpose of the court is not to act as the scientific review board to pick the expert or the studies it most prefers but to determine whether all of the proffered evidence is going to meet the basic assisting the trier of fact standard to be let into the courtroom Mr. Shackman is this final question going to leave you in Ms. Cabraser in agreement or in disagreement? Partial agreement Judge Smith certainly when Daubert was decided in 1994 there wasn't an immediate embracing of the gatekeeping function by trial judges the death knell of the old ready willing able testifier rule that we saw in therapy in some other cases and so with now Joiner and Kumho Tire and recently the Weissgram case the Supreme Court has made it very clear that this function is here to stay and I've seen more enthusiasm for the function among trial judges who certainly would still like to have that bright line rule that Daubert and Rothstein referred to and I certainly don't have that formula or algorithm to give to judges but Daubert is not simply the creation of rhetoric about junk science from one side or the other in the courtroom but really represents a perception that the judgments coming out of court about scientific issues were so disconnected from what was going on in the scientific community that it had to be done and so it's not just business as usual I think it represents a change in judicial philosophy and an institutional reformation to conform the practice of expert testimony to what goes on in the scientific community Well I hope that this panel has made some of those issues a little more clear to our audience we've just about reached the end of this segment so before we close let's summarize some of the panel's major conclusions first don't assume that every case requires a full blown evidentiary hearing second the court does have an obligation to perform the gatekeeper role which includes examining the underlying methodology and which may require a hearing third as part of this insists that the witnesses and the lawyers explain their position in plain English fourth, it is not your role to decide the weight of the evidence but rather it's admissibility and fifth, there are few of any bright lines but common sense and a willingness to listen and to probe will not only get you through it but provide you with an exciting opportunity to learn of course the issues we've considered today are complex and as the discussion has shown call into play pertinent principles as much as governing legal principles as such I encourage you to make use of any and all resources that will help you achieve a working knowledge of the principles of epidemiology toxicology or whatever types of scientific evidence you are encountering in your cases those resources include the other programs in this series the center's reference manual on scientific evidence materials on the center's DCN side accompanying this program including the full toxic tort hypothetical developed by professors Berger and Zimmerman and for guidance in managing complex cases involving issues similar to those we've considered today the center's manual for complex litigation in closing I'd just like to say again how grateful we are to all of our panelists for giving time and sharing their experience with us we hope this helps those of you who are watching and I encourage you to check the FJTN bulletin and the center's DCN site for the schedule of other programs in our science in the courtroom series on behalf of the FJC thank you for watching


Hey guys, welcome back to our channel. My name is Andrea with Food and Mentory Adventures in Food and I am here today to share the perfect game day dip with you guys. It is a spicy cheeseburger dip and let me show you what you're going to need. You're going to need some ground beef, taco seasoning, milk, garlic.  If you don't have white pepper, that's fine. Black pepper will do. You're going to need some salsa and some Velveeta cheese. So if you want to see how this simple recipe comes together, stay tuned. So in my pot, I've got my ground beef and I'm going to add my garlic and I am just going to let this cook until it is well done. Okay, so my meat is cooked. I didn't have to worry about draining the meat because I'm using a really lean ground beef and as you can see, the meat is finely chopped. I love this chopper thing. It is a game changer. So the next thing that I'm going to do is add in my taco seasoning, my white pepper and my water. And if I didn't mention it already, I'll make sure to leave the recipe in the description box. So I've got my water in there and I am just going to let this simmer a little bit uncovered until most of that water has evaporated. So most of my water has evaporated. So right now I'm going to add in my milk and my Velveeta cheese that I cubed to make it easier to melt. So I'm just going to give this a good stir. And let this melt down. All right, so my cheese has completely melted and the last thing that I'm going to do is add in my salsa. Now, if you'd prefer rotel, you can do that too. I've done both, so whatever your preference is. And of course, the spicier your salsa or rotel, the spicier your cheeseburger dip is going to be. And I am just going to let this warm all the way through and then I will come back and show you everything all plated up. Okay, so here is the spicy cheese dip. As you can see, it was so easy to make. I've got mine plated up with some green onions on top. If you are going to have this dip out for a while, like at a Super Bowl party, I would definitely put it in a crock-pot on warm just to make it easier to serve. So anyways, I hope you guys enjoyed this video. If you did, please make sure to give us a thumbs up and if you have not subscribed to our channel, I certainly hope you'll do so. Thanks so much for watching and we'll see you guys next time.


What's going on everyone Sam here with Layton Sports Cards We're doing 2022 Panini 3 and 2 baseball hobby 10 box case break number 7 random team style Here's a look again at our random results as always you can find these on the website under the results tab as well as the Lincoln Shatt Let's do it guys last case was pretty awesome had two timeless moments come out of the last case Mark McGuire to two and Reggie Jackson to seven That was McGuire hitting the 60 second home run and Reggie Jackson's miss their October playoff run cool this guy I'm in that typical like Ohio in the now 60 degrees cold. I know same dude. I was like it is freezing out when it's like 60. I'm like, um That's just not what I do honestly Right nice way to start. Wow really nice way to start here. That's awesome, man. This team doing very well. We've got That is Rogers horns be 25 to out of 32. We've got Joe Ryan to 32 on the rookie And we've got a full count Cedric Mullins to 50 First hit we've got a Shohei Otani jumbo swatches player worn at 60 out of 75 very nice angels mark R and mark again, how about a four-colored RPA read debt mers 35 out of 49 gorgeous patch on that congrats mark Sweepin the hits in the first box So say Mookie bets 40 out of 99 Dodgers Mackenzie Gore 14 out of 99 at Padres and all rookie team Joe Ryan to 150 Going to the twins We've got Jose Miranda going to the twins two out of 49 And then we've got another timeless moments this time Cal Ripken boom seven out of ten that is on the Ironman streak right there the 200 or no the 22,131st game in a row He's congrats on that one Nam cue with the Orioles. That is sick Three timeless moments in two cases now Over 2100 in a row It's known I would say most people say it's the most unbreakable record in sports history Because right now the guy The the result like in the MLB the guys played the most consecutive is like 300 or something And you have to play until 2037 every game and to break the record, you know, okay So yeah pretty Pretty unbeatable, especially now with guys always resting and stuff Yeah, Cal Ripken was his nickname was literally the Ironman because of that Gabby Hartnett seven out of 15 MJ Melendez that is 29 out of 32 and Soulins Albert Pujol is the 150 Yeah, Terry. I that that's true, too. That's a tough one to break to break What do you guys think some most unbreakable record in sports? Spencer Trogelsen that is 48 out of 49 Going to the Tigers on the player worn patch and we've got patch auto 22 out of 35 Buster Posey There you go giants Derek you game worn Buster Posey very nice By the time he actually retires like Tom Brady's passing yards, I'm probably gonna be that's probably gonna be up there. Yeah Sai young with wins and baseball that'll just pictures don't pitch as much obviously that'll never be broken Best picture so right now, I think the picture with the most wins is In the MLB right now is like 230 and he's got 511 wins in baseball for pitching the next closest is like 300 something Nolan are not it's a 99 jaren Durant a 99 red sox and we've got Say a Suzuki the 150 cubs Pistol Pete's college records very true Brady's rings is gonna be hard to top. That's a good point seven as a quarterback. Yeah Julio Rodriguez one out of 49 player Warren Jersey Jersey patch Jersey LeBron most I'm crying on the court fair enough true Joshua We've got Brayston stop rookie Jersey auto going to the Phillies Congrats, Philadelphia. That is Jeff N 49 out of 49 book end None no one will beat that record. That's true That's true Gretzky's points will probably never be Be in you want to hear like one of the craziest stats in sports So Wayne Gretzky has the most points in NHL history. So goals and assists. Yeah, and Basically He is the fastest to a thousand points and then him going from a thousand to two thousand is the second fastest to a thousand points In NHL history, that's crazy unbelievable.  Yes, sir back just in time Max Scherzer to 12 Mets Joe Perez for the Astros to 99 and soul ends Aaron judge to 150 We've got Glenn Otto that is 75 out of 99 go into the Rangers and Nice one here go into Paul with the Diamondbacks Louise Gonzalez seven out of 15 timeless moments That is there in the oh one World Series where they beat the Yankees So we're not gonna talk about that too much, but really nice card. Congrats Paul So sweet man There it is Paul. Is that you with the Diamondbacks? That is an awesome card, dude. Awesome card Here you go back to the hockey thing. You mean a OV Ovechkin, right? Yeah. Yeah I want to make sure I didn't know if there was another player like nicknamed OV now. Yeah, that's Ovechkin Yes, sir Clayton Kershaw to 99 Dodgers Harry Ford prospects to a 99. That's a Mariners And we've got Eddie Collins 147 out of 150 One spot in a break of this is I believe seventy nine dollars seventy nine dollars We've got Eddie's Leonard go into the Dodgers 14 out of 49 Jersey nice one here go into Richard R. Richard R first break in a while man. How about a Larry Walker nine out of 49? Nice game more on the Larry Walker. Very nice Yeah, Celtics eight straight championships will never be broken Jerry Rice's records will be tough to Jerry Rice's receiving records are kind of wild Yeah, something like that and then his his Touchdowns are pretty solid, too. Yeah. Yeah hack Wilson a hundred ninety one RBI is in a season. That's crazy. Oh nice. Wow Sweet man Yeah, UCLA that's a big one, too They won like Was it what is it like eight straight March Madnesses or something like that? What's up shorts? Chipper to 99 breaks Tristan Kossus 22 out of 32 Red Sox and Bobby with junior to 150 for the Royals Yeah, Mike, that's that's what sparked this conversation We did the time we pulled the timeless moments Cal and we were talking about the most unbreakable record in sports And that's one of the big ones We've got Brian De La Cruz going to the Marlins to 99 player worn and Going to James a with the Rangers. How about a day one Jack Lidder Boom 10 out of 25. This is the first live Jack Lidder. I've ever seen right here Can crats on that one that is sick James Absolutely awesome. It's a lot of those unbreakable records man. I Know saying we got it on but it's just brutal. They're getting booed as they should That's what I'm saying Terry, right? It was live. I couldn't believe it was live I've never seen a live Jack Lidder auto. I didn't even know they existed Albert Pujols the 25 Cardinals Gunnar Henderson to 99 a prospect card for the Orioles and Miguel Cabrera 72 out of 150 future first ballots We've got That is Wade Boggs 11 out of 15 game worn for the Red Sox And then we've got a Corey Lee Lone Star signatures three colored RPA for the Astros two out of 32 The Yankees never beating the Astros in the playoffs. Yeah, that's an unbreakable record right there. Yeah, Terry We pulled a wander out of two yesterday, but it was a redemption. So I think maybe his one-of-one is live, but Probably not too much. Unfortunately Pulled an Aaron judge redemption out of this yesterday. Oh Dude, that's so sick Let's go man Sam Crawford to 99 Tigers Nick York to 99 for the Red Sox and David Ortiz to 150 is Red Sox, I hope he does Terry Two out of five Riley Adams three colored patch congrats on that one at Nationals And we've got a superstars auto Clayton Kershaw Two out of 15 nice hit James a with the Dodgers There you go, buddy. I'm literally as soon as I get home from the range tomorrow. I'm not speaking another word Yeah, oh nice man, this is so I love this product. It's so much fun Sam rice out of 99 That is Is it no nice? Well, I mean hey, it's it's cool man He got Padres CJ Abrams, and we've got Bryce Harper first ballot future first ballots to 50 We've got Nolan Gorman. That is Jersey and looks like sock relic player worn six out of 49 for the Cardinals And we've got a quad Jersey Otto. I'm Drew Jones going to the Braves four out of 32 game worn That'll do it for the break guys gonna do a quick recap just the autos Andrew Jones Brakes Clayton Kershaw for the Dodgers very cool Corey Lee go into the Astros Jack Lader Rangers live Larry Walker Rockies Louise Gonzalez timeless moments for the Diamondbacks That is Bryston stop Phillies Buster Posey Giants Cal Ripken go into the Orioles and re debt merge go into the angels That'll do it for the break guys. Thanks again for the fill next up. We've got division styles of this


I think the Lost Boys was crafted, I think, somewhere in Russia, if I recall it well, in history. And we had the same similarities. We were almost more than 90% of the population that went to were all boys, and they had one thing in common, running away from the danger. As the war began in 1983, and that war breached almost the community in all South Sudan, and in 1987, I became one of the Lost Boys that was displaced by the war. When it reached, we were about a thousand Lost Boys that left from the Harrier. We had to track until we reached Ethiopia in 1987. It was actually one of the first painful experiences that I had, because as a young boy, it could be between 9 and 12 years old, because not knowing my exact age, we had a lot of problems on the way. And one of the problems was starvation, as you can imagine. Water was a big, you know, and wild animals on the way. We left again in 1992 until we reached a place called Nairus, which is very near to Capoeira. We stayed for a few months. Then UNICR took us to Kakuma, and that's where I was registered as a refugee in Kakuma in 1992. There was a refugee settlement that was meant only for Lost Boys, and that started in 1998. And I had my toughest decision that I had to make, because at that time it was about 10 years, or 11 years, not knowing where my relatives are. And I was thinking, do I have to take a decision to go to America, where I don't know how our people maybe are they all dead, or what had happened. So I decided to go to America, and in 2001, on April 10th, April 8th, I left Kakuma. Then I reached in Atlanta, Georgia, April 10th, 2001. And that decision was really a best decision that I haven't made, because I've been writing a lot of rcm, the Red Cross messages, to my relatives and there's no reply. From, I think, I started in 1994 until 2001. I couldn't get any reply at all, and I was thinking maybe there's nobody that survived, and therefore I decided, OK, I have to go to America. The life is different, food is different, and I remember when I was with my American friends, they have different foods, and also it was tough even for us to get it all into universities and colleges. When I earn a dollar, I have to find out my parents, and I happened to talk with my brother for the first time. In 2004, I was relieved, I was totally relieved, and I could know who is dead, I could know who is alive, I could know, you know, and I was relieved then. So after independence of South Sudan in 2011, I decided I thought, you know, we have a country that we can all build together. And then I came here. Then when the war, the crisis started in December 15, 2013, I had to be even quitted, and I remember they were telling me to go to Nairobi, I said no, I'm not going to Nairobi, I will go to Kenya. I think I was unemployed for about seven months, eight months. Then I finally got a job with ICRC in June of last year. We are doing a medical evacuation today, leaving Ganyal to Ganyal, which is north of here, about 25 minutes or 30 minutes flight. So unfortunately, some cattle raiders came and attacked a village and took cattle, about 110 cattle, head of cattle according to the local source. They have killed two people and wounded four. Now we are going to evacuate a woman and a three-year-old girl from Ganyal because there is no good medical facility in Ganyal, so we are evacuating them to Ganyal for a better treatment, operations, and we will also bring a caretaker together with that child. It's not me alone that decided to come back home. We had a lot of us that came back home that are even walking either with the government or with the angels or that are doing their private work as well. Unfortunately, we were all hoping to come home and build a home together, but some of us, most of us that did came, went back to America and I'm one of the few that decided to stay because I was thinking it's not a right time for me to leave because when your people are in danger, why would you have to go back? I'm always hopeful and optimistic that thing will be better because this is a country that we all loved. This is our land and we lost boys that have seen it all and we want to have a better future. We have our country have a better future and this is the hope that we are always praying for so that this country can be better for all of us.


All right, don't take it personally they'll always like this when I'm on stage So Don't worry, I reckon that if we don't draw attention to it will skip the fine So mate it's a bit warm in here, do you not want to take off your jacket the man's the man's not a hot My G So I want to be a bit sincere for a second a little bit sincere so Since you've become Labour leader. There has been this mood of elation and hope I Was walking around, you know by cams in town hall And I was just thinking about how much better life is going to be under a Labour government and then Yeah, I'm gonna be like this, but all the time And then this guy who was kind of cute came up to me and was like so why are you smiling darling you thinking about me? Had to be honest with me like no I was thinking about Jeremy Corbyn Sounds like a conversation killer Yeah, no he sort of looked at me and was like second thoughts So the country's gone through a bit of a dark time things are getting better And you know who else has been going through a bit of a dark time Your beloved arsenal FC But and it pains me to do this as a rabid Spurs fan what What's going on here to announce Arsenal's new star signing Thank you. Shall we honor it to Ecta Bellarine? Because he saw off Piers Morgan, didn't he? A bit about your visions for not just the future of Britain, but next season as well Maybe tell us how you've been enjoying your Thursday nights recently well the You know the bus journey to Belarus is long and slow But the journey is going to be worth it in the end and we're quite lucky that No team in bloody Vostok is playing in the Europa League. It would be an awfully long journey for a Thursday night, but You know what? After the Cup final, do you remember that and you know something? I mean you'll love this as a Spurs supporter I don't want to be difficult about this, but can you think of it this way? Who's won more matches at Wembley this year? Arsenal or Spurs Listen, I'm to be for the future Prime Minister on stage But if afterwards I'll take my earrings out someone can hold my bag will settle this the old fashion way I've got a nice little box. You can put your earrings in it's fine Can I say something about Arsenal? You'll like this bit actually you'll you'll like this bit actually because this is inclusive This is the caring sharing lovely Arsenal that you know and love really After Cup final you remember that No, no, I I'm very sure that the majority of this audience are not Arsenal supporters. You've got to be quite careful here Don't worry. I'm used. I'm very used to being in a minority that I Came out of the Cup final and I was stopped. They said okay Corbin Your lot's gonna get smashed in the election.  The underdog in red is more dogged than you ever thought watch this space I've got nothing compared to that I've got nothing compared to that. I don't have any good political analogs of Spurs All I have is an agonising and toxic 25 year relationship really We can help you out We're a caring party Very kind very gentle will help you out. No problem at all So I think these lovely people are waiting for you to give one of your characteristics on swimming speeches. Yes Can I First of all say it's a wonderful tradition in the Labour Party you try to Reduce the levels of joy so you organize a party to end conference and you start it off with a speech I'm sure it's gonna get better later on things Who's who said that who said that? Oh very good The droll man over there with the yellow tie-on. Thank you. I think the the way in which in the second year running we've had the world transformed event as a event Parallel to and involved in part of the atmosphere of our conferences absolutely fantastic was you've Provided the space the verb the inspiration and above all the opportunity For people to come here and share their views share their visions share their ideas ask difficult and searching questions and Continue to inspire and debate because that is really what politics is all about and next year in Liverpool Obviously, I don't know what the venue is gonna be but let's make the world transformed absolutely in essential parts Of the whole conference spirit because that is what it is about So I want to say thank you to all of you for what you've done over the world transform And I'm very proud very proud to have been able to come here and support the world Transformed and I know you've had namey Klein here Speaking to you and I was very pleased when she accepted the invitation that we sent her to ask her to speak to the party conference because I've admired what she's written and done for a very long time and I had the pleasure of Doing a big event at the Paris climate change conference with Barry Gardner and we had a very big meeting one evening discussing issues not just of the very serious questions about climate change and Global warming and the obvious effects of all of that but a much more Profound discussion as well about attitudes the environment about pollution of damage to water quality air quality Reforestation and all those issues about the mindset of how you deal with the environment now Naomi has written extensively on all this and then taking it into a challenge on speculative economics which leads to rust belt towns left behind communities unbelievable levels of poverty a sense of hopelessness and Fertile feeding ground for those that would exploit that hopelessness to blame somebody else and Panda to racism and let racism grow as a result of it surely We can do a lot better So I think the very profound questions that she put in a speech to conference today Are something that is educative of all and I want to thank her for that and also thank Tom Watson for what he also said about the gig economy and Automation within our society because we have to deal with and confront these issues Do you think about it previous industrial revolutions? the first ones that developed steam power that led to industrialization led to the manufacture of steel were huge and profound and led to a mass exodus from rural communities in Britain into the urban centers and Led to also the enclosure acts which took away the ability of rural communities to sustain themselves and force tens of thousands hundreds of thousands millions of workers into industrial slums that led to Eventually a profound political change, but to begin with it wasn't a profound political change It was a sense of desperation and hopelessness Later industrial changes and revolutions led to industrial warfare in the First World War and led after the First World War To electronics industry growing up to a more high-tech industries growing up which had again a parallel effect on older industrial areas and so the process has gone on at every stage of those revolutions Immediately the very richest were made very rich The very poorest suffered the most and the most oppressive governments took over to deal with the issues of what the poorest were putting up with oppression of trade unions oppression of human rights and Appalling treatment of the very poorest and so we now move to a whole new revolution in terms of very high technology in terms of automation and all those issues are we going to stand back and say that this new automation will create the Multi-multi-multi-billionaires of a small number of people who've got hold of the technology and can therefore Control a lot of industry from that or are we going to be strong enough to say we want and will do something very different so that the benefits of technology shared amongst all Rather than used as a wealth and power grab for the very few these are not These are not simple issues, but they're issues that have been raised But it's also how we deal with that and so I hope that The policy discussions will be having by everybody reaching out popular public discussions will lead to that profound change in thinking because when we Look for an election. Maybe next year. Maybe the year after I can't predict exactly when it will be I've no idea what plans Theresa May has to walk in the Welsh Hills But we have to have those debates and those discussions And I look to the spirit of the world transformed of the work the momentum and others are doing to make sure that we Widen those discussions out everybody can make some contribution to it And the more they're involved in thinking about what we do for the future the stronger we will be and the more Determined will be to win that election whenever it comes and the better prepared will be we're going into government after that two other things I want to say is this that Our Society our people are actually incredibly creative people all over the world are incredibly Creative music song dance theater art all that is very very creative. I think too often We're almost apologetic ashamed of the idea We're a bit creative and we often too often suppress it in children and young people and don't give them that chance and I think one of the most important things we can do is Improve our education system so that we don't Drive the creativity out of young people. We possibly welcome it and encourage it hence hence my views hence the views we all have on on music art and theater Education so it's there for all of us and for the many and it doesn't actually have to be exclusive it can be there at all times and Helps children feel included in their communities included in their lives and what they're going to do but also understand the way in which Everyone is creative in many ways all through their lives even in the worst of circumstances Somebody that I'm very fond of and great admirer of is the writer Ben Ockrey he has had a difficult and very complicated life and For some time he was homeless, but he was still writing when he was homeless He'd be sleeping rough and then going into a library and writing during the day and so He had this thirst to put down on paper What his ideas and his experience were and you look at so many writers that have achieved so much in that sense so think of all those stories of Refugees that are not being written down those people that are going through the most horrendous times in their lives in refugee camps around the world and suffering as a result so I Was very pleased a couple of days ago to be given a book of Refugees stories and refugee poetry Fascinating amazing stuff They're human beings just like all of us and they want to contribute to the good of all of us And so it's up to us practically to reach out Practically to help and support people and last Saturday. I met a young man in a local facility around here and he said you remember me don't you know should Really really sorry not sure. He said you know what you last saw me in Calais in the refugee camp two years ago And he's now here contributing to our society in our community. Well done him so it is about that and it is about our attitude towards the rest of the world the way we which we deal with the environmental and refugee crisis the way in which we work for and look for a World of peace which we look for the causes of war the causes of instability and the dangers that those Unstable places bring about for the rest of us Which is why I said what I said during the election campaign about all that and I will continue in that Direction and keep on saying that because we do need to have a different approach to the whole world There's only one planet that I know of that. It's got anybody living on so let's look after it This conference has been a an Incredible experience because it's the biggest Labour Party conference has ever been in my lifetime as I said the other day and I've been to pretty well every Labour Party conference since before 1970 so I've got a good lot to compare it to and it's been one of the most Inclusive and one of the most respectful of each other that I can remember for a very long time and that and That is how it must be if we believe in socialism if we believe In the goodness of all human beings to do things for each other Then we have to set an example of how we treat each other as well how we relate to each other How we respect each other particularly when you don't agree with each other because from that doesn't show weakness that is strength and then I've got Quite a lot of places. I've got to go to this evening and I've got a little job on tomorrow, which I've got get ready for I Just want to conclude with this. I was doing a number of interviews today and They said to me what would be your first priority with the Labour government and There's obviously lots and lots of things that are the immediate priority announcements Decisions you've taken so on but these I said to them is this I said there's something that is profoundly wrong the housing in this country that Too many people are living Insecure lives in private rented accommodation high rents short tenancies and children growing up not knowing where their home's gonna be Next month next week or even sometimes the next day all they know is they're gonna be evicted and they've got to present themselves at the Housing Department and find which other flat they're gonna be sent to for another six months Imagine what that does to those children and their perceptions of community and life and security and so As far as I'm concerned our priority There are many but the first priority has to be saying we will set in train a process as was done in the debate today On housing on housing security and housing investment that will mean yes Spending money on housing. Yes, it will mean spending money employing people to build those houses Yes, it will mean spending money on employing people to provide the services for those houses and In building good quality houses at proper secure affordable rents You're building strong communities at the same time And So we also look at cooperative housing and then I said the priority and John and John McDonald Explained this very well in his speech to conference that what we want to do is measure the success of us of our government By our inclusion of everybody in what we do while as a party But also in government what we do to lower Inequality increase opportunity for the poorest and most marginal and ensure a sense of fairness across the country So Coalfield communities where the pits were closed under Thatcher will get the investment they need and deserve that whole swathes Whole swathes of the country will not be left behind as they have been in this unfair race Which has left so many communities with high levels of unemployment Low low quality low paid jobs is simply wrong and so it is what we do So we campaign so we talk so we debate so above all we take out that message there Of what we can achieve and how that other world could be achieved and is very very possible I want to thank momentum for what they've done I want to thank the world transform for being here and what it's achieved and So many people have said to me how They have come along to the world transform. They didn't really know what it was They were slightly skeptical about it. I've no idea why but they might have read something about it in the papers Who knows and they come along and said how interesting it was how welcome they were made to feel and how much they Learned from being here everybody we meet knows something else knows something we don't know people have different ideas and different concepts Don't dismiss them listen to them learn from them and that makes us all stronger at the end of it What we're doing is building a movement a movement of hope of opportunity a movement of determination a movement that Recognizes we cannot go on headlong Into greater inequality greater injustice greater poverty and at the extreme end of that more and more homelessness Or we can go in the other direction of doing things differently and better and you know what we will thank you very much