DAYS 86, 87: The Mature Mr. Semenik
April 6, 2005 12:56 am by Gene BorioApr 6, 2005, 12:44 PM
DOJ attorney Elizabeth Crocker seems to be doing a good job of diminishing the impact of W. Kip Viscusi’s testimony on surveys concerning risk perception.
Dr. Viscusi is certainly the closest thing to a heavyweight the Defense has yet offered:
He is the John F. Cogan, Jr. Professor of Law and Economics at Harvard. *
He has written or coauthored hundreds of articles (”I am currently ranked seventh among all economists in the world in terms of articles published in the top peer-reviewed journals”).
He has written over 20 books, 2 of which concern smoking specifically.
AND he makes $850/hour. His fee for testifying is $3400/half-day or any portion thereof, and $6800/full day.
Dr. Viscusi believes that smokers from the 1950’s on were well aware of the risks of smoking, based on surveys. Ms. Crocker has established that the 3 of the 4 surveys he mainly relies on were funded by tobacco industry law firms “for use in litigation,” and has found evidence that finds fault with the numerical aspect of the 3 main questions he relies on (questions that ask respondents for estimates of lung cancer, total smoking mortality and years of life lost in terms of the number “out of 100 smokers”).
She has also brought into evidence Gallop survey questions that he has failed to cite which undercut the import of the ones he does cite
**———————————————————
* He seems quite possessive of his titles. When Ms. Crocker mis-identified an author as “Dr. Hanson,” Dr. Viscusi got somewhat exercised, and said,
DR. VISCUSI: MR. Hanson is NOT a doctor.
MS. CROCKER: You are aware he is a professor?
DR. VISCUSI: Yes
MS. CROCKER: And he is a professor at Harvard law school, like yourself?
DR. VISCUSI (with vigor): He does not have a chair, he is not head of a department.. . we do have different ranks.
MS. CROCKER: But he is a professor, like yourself?
DR. VISCUSI: We both have jobs at Harvard.
Now I see that there are indeed issues between the two:
April 6th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
That’s an amusing exchange.
In the rarified atmosphere at Harvard, becoming a Professor (a “full”, or “actual” professor) is considered quite an honor, and is usually not bestowed on anyone who isn’t genuinely a world caliber expert in their field, or at least the chairperson of a dept (who at Harvard is also usually a world expert). That generally means a bare minimum of 15 years of experience and a substantial body of scholarly work. People who never attain the rank of full professor at Harvard routinely leave to be instantly granted that rank at “lesser” institutions (ie that would be considered any institution other than Harvard). So the title is quite coveted, and considering the notoriously lousy pay at Harvard, the importance of academic rank is amplified.
So that said, Hanson’s title actually is “Professor” at Harvard Law School. The catch is, the ranking system at HLS is a bit different than at the rest of Harvard. Everywhere else, there are “assistant” professors, “associate” professors, then (full) professors. Harvard Med school takes this craziness even one step further with yet another gratuitous non-professor rank of “lecturer”.
At HLS, the entry rank of lawyers fresh out of law school is “assistant professor”. About five years experience and appropriate scholarly work may buy you a promotion to “professor”, which is what Hanson is. But though the titles are the same, Viscusi is correct in pointing out that Hanson’s academic rank is inferior to his own. At HLS the equivalent rank to Viscusi’s would be an endowed Professorship, like for example Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law (or Dr. Viscusi, John F. Logan Professor of law). Unlike Viscusi, Hanson lacks that credential, meaning he truly is NOT the same kind of “professor” that Viscusi is.
In terms of doctorates, Hanson is a lawyer with a doctorate of jurisprudence. So technically, Hanson is a “doctor” just as “Ms.” Crocker is a doctor, Judge Kessler is a doctor, and every other lawyer in that giant courtroom full of lawyers are doctors! But considering that that the title of “doctor” is generally reserved for medical/health profession doctors or persons with dissertation level scientific degrees (and usually additional postgraduate research), and considering that “Dr”. Hanson presumeably doesn’t use that title in his professional capacity as a lawyer, it isn’t odd that Viscusi chafes a bit at the use of that term. Frankly, I don’t think lawyers should be called “doctors” either, and neither do most of the lawyers I know!
In terms of pay, as any economist (Harvard or not!) will tell you, expert witnesses are paid what the market can bear. That Viscusi can command the remarkably stiff fee of $850 per hour as an expert speaks to his ability and experience. Its not only what he has to say, but also the tremendous clout his credentials and experience bring to what he has to say that command the exhorbitant price.