Journal of Science and Technology Studies (과학기술학연구)

Korean Association of Science and Technology Studies (한국과학기술학회)
권호 표지

Risk and Responsibility in Korean Tobacco Litigation: Epidemiology and Causality in Late Modern Risk

한국 담배소송에서의 위험과 책임: 역학과 후기 근대적 인과

  • 박진영 (서울대학교 과학사 및 과학철학 협동과정) ;
  • 이두갑 (서울대학교 서양사학과 & 과학사 및 과학철학 협동과정)
  • Received : 2015.11.20
  • Accepted : 2015.12.20
  • Published : 2015.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Toxic tort cases have increased dramatically since the 1970s, as large technological systems, such as nuclear power plants and chemical factories, or mass-produced, high-tech products, had exposed citizens and consumers to dangerous substances. It was, however, difficult to establish causal connection between exposure and the alleged harms in many of the environmental, pollution, and product liability cases under the framework of tort law conception of causation and responsibility. Science and law was called upon to resolve such 'late modern' legal cases where true causes are hard to find, where no single explanatory factor is sufficient for explaining diseases like cancer. This article examines how plaintiffs in the Korean tobacco litigation mobilized such late modern tools in science and law, such as epidemiology and the allocation of the burden of proof, in the context of the global circulation of science and law. It further shows how a set of the scientific theories and legal arguments developed in order to cope with late modern risk played a central role in establishing a causation between smoking and cancer in 2011. This article suggests that STS scholars can fruitfully examine the interaction between science and law as a way to understand and engage with social and legal issues engendered by late modern risk.

20세기 중반 이후, 거대과학기술 시스템과 대량생산 체제의 발달에 수반되어 방사능, 공해, 새로운 합성물질 및 제조물 등 후기 근대적 위험(late modern risk)에 노출된 다수의 피해자들이 나타났다. 이들이 제기한 환경 공해소송 및 제조물 책임 소송에서 과학적 인과관계 규명과 법적 책임 판단은 과학기술과 법 영역에서 가장 첨예한 논쟁의 대상으로 부상했다. 이 글은 한국 담배소송에서 후기 근대적 위험에 대응하고자 나타났던 여러 과학기술적, 법적 도구들이 어떻게 적극적으로 사용되며 흡연과 폐암의 인과관계에 대한 새로운 법적 판단을 이끌어 내었는지 분석했다. 한국 법정에서 역학과 위험사회 질병의 정의를 둘러싼 첨예한 논쟁이 벌어졌으며, 인과관계 논쟁의 '해결' 과정에서 법적 규범, 책임 및 과학적 증거에 대한 후기 근대적 재해석의 틀이 마련되었던 것이다. 결론으로 위험사회에서의 피해와 법적 정의 구현에 대한 새로운 합의 도출 과정에서 과학기술과 법의 상호작용과 그 변화에 대한 이해가 핵심적이었으며, 이러한 이해가 후기 근대적 환경 공해소송과 제조물 소송에 대한 과학기술학적 분석에 유용할 것이라 제안한다.

Keywords

References

  1. 박규용 (2008), 흡연자의 건강침해에 대한 담배제조사의 제조물책임, 민사법학, 제40호, pp. 227-259.
  2. 박상표 (2012), 담배기업의 횡포와 청부과학, WHO 담배규제기본 협약(FCTC) NGO 포럼 : 다국적 담배산업과 자유무역 그리고 전세계 민중의 건강, 발표자료.
  3. 박치룡 (2002), 2. 환경소송에서의 인과관계와 입증책임, 법원도서관, 환경법의 제문제(상), pp. 65-113, 대법원 법원도서관.
  4. 배금자 (1999), 미국담배소송의 이론과 한국의 적용가능성, 민주사회를 위한 변론, 제32호, pp. 1-10.
  5. 배금자 (2004), 한국담배소송의 쟁점, 한국의료법학회지, 제12권 제1호, pp. 89-110.
  6. 배금자 (2006), 담배사업자의 흡연피해로 인한 보상과 책임, 보건복지포럼, 2006년 6월호, pp. 63-75.
  7. 백경희.이인재 (2012), 의료과실책임과 유해물질 제조물책임에서의 인과관계에 관한 최근 판결의 동향 및 증명책임 경감 논의에 대한 검토, 경희법학, 제47권 제3호, pp. 9-41.
  8. 유현식 (2015), 담배소송의 법리적 쟁점에 관한 연구, 서울대학교법학 석사학위 논문.
  9. 전경운 (2010), 환경소송에서 인과관계의 입증에 관한 소고, 환경법연구, 제32권 제2호, pp. 63-96.
  10. Bae, K. J. (1998), "Applying American Tobacco Litigation Theories in Korea", L.L.M Degree, Harvard University Law School.
  11. Beck, U. (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage Publications.
  12. Black, B. & Lilienfeld, D. (1984), "Epidemiologic Proof in Toxic Tort Litigation", Fordham Law Review, Vol. 52, pp. 732-785.
  13. Blomquist, R. (1992), "American Toxic Tort Law: An Historical Background, 1979-87", Pace Environmental Law Review, Vol. 10, pp. 85-173.
  14. Brandt, A. (1990), "Cigarette, Risk, and American Culture", Daedalus, Vol. 119, pp. 155-176.
  15. Brandt, A. (2007), The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product that Defined America, New York: Basic Books.
  16. Brannigan, V., Bier, V. & Berg, C. (1992), "Risk, Statistical Inference, and the Law of Evidence: The Use of Epidemiological Data in Toxic Tort Cases", Risk Analysis, Vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 343-351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00686.x
  17. Brodeur, P. (1985), Outrageous Misconduct: The Asbestos Industy on Trial, New York: Pantheon.
  18. Brown, P. (1987), "Popular Epidemiology: Community Response to Toxic Waste-Induced Disease in Woburn, Massachusetts", Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 12, no. 3/4, pp. 78-85.
  19. Boudia, S. & Jas, N. ed. (2013), Toxicants, Health and Regulation since 1945, London: Pickering and Chatto.
  20. Boudia, S. & Jas, N. ed. (2014), Powerless Science?: Science and Politics in a Toxic World, New York: Berghahn Books.
  21. Carroll, S., et al. (2005), Asbestos Litigation, Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.
  22. Doll, R. & Hill, A. (1950), "Smoking and Carcinoma of the Lung", British Medical Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 740-748.
  23. Doll, R. & Hill, A. (1952), "A Study of the Aetiology of Carcinoma of the Lung", British Medical Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 1271-1286. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.4797.1271
  24. Doll, R. & Hill, A. (1954), "The Mortality of Doctors in Relation to their Smoking Habits: A Preliminary Report", British Medical Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 1451-1455. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.4877.1451
  25. Doll, R. & Hill, A. (1956), "Lung Cancer and other Causes of Death in Relation to Smoking: A Second Report on the Mortality of British Doctors", British Medical Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 1071-81. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.5001.1071
  26. Edell, M. (1986), "Cigarette Litigation: The Second Wave", Tort and Insurance Law, Vol. 22, pp. 90-103.
  27. Epstein, R. (1980), Modern Product Liability Law, Westport: Quorum Books.
  28. Feinstein, A. (1967), Clinical Judgment, Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
  29. Feinstein, A. (1973), "The Epidemiologic Trohoc, the Ablative Risk Ratio, and 'Retrospective' Research'", Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Vol. 14, pp. 291-307. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt1973142291
  30. Feinstein, A. (1979), "Methodological Problems and Standards in Case-control Research", Journal of Chronic Diseases, Vol. 32, pp. 35-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(79)90009-2
  31. Feinstein, A. (1988), "Scientific Standards in Epidemiologic Studies of the Menace of Daily Life", Science, Vol. 242, pp. 1257-1263. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3057627
  32. Fischer, F. (2000), Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge, Durham: Duke University Press.
  33. Fisher, R. (1957), "Alleged Dangers of Cigarette-Smoking,", British Medical Journal, Vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 297-298.
  34. Garner, D. (1980), "Cigarette Dependency and Civil Liability: A Modest Proposal", Southern California Law Review, Vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1423-1465.
  35. Gold, S. (1986), "Causation in Toxic Torts: Burdens of Proof, Standards of Persuasion, and Statistical Evidence", Yale Law Journal, Vol. 96, pp. 376-402. https://doi.org/10.2307/796423
  36. Golan, T. (2010), "The Kishon Affair: Science, Law, and the Politics of Causation." Science in Context, Vol. 23, pp. 535-569. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889710000207
  37. Golan, T. (2012), "The History of Epidemiological Evidence in the Twentieth-Century American Courtroom", in Riskin, J. & Biagioli, M. eds., Nature Engaged: Science in Practice from the Renaissance to the Present, pp. 163-183, New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
  38. Gordis, L. (1988), "Challenges to Epidemiology in the Next Decade", American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 128, pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114931
  39. Green, M. (1992), "Expert Witnesses and Sufficiency of Evidence in Toxic Substances Litigation: The Legacy of Agent Orange and Bendectin Litigation", Northwestern Law Review, Vol. 86, pp. 643-699.
  40. Hill, A. (1965), "The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?", Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 58, pp. 295-300.
  41. Huber, P. (1991), Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, New York: Basic.
  42. Jasanoff, S. (1995), Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America, Cambridge Harvard University Press.
  43. Jasanoff, S. (2002), "Science and the Statistical Victim: Modernizing Knowledge in Breast Implant Litigation", Social Studies of Science, Vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 37-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312702032001003
  44. Jobin, P. & Tseng, Y. H. (2014), "Guinea Pigs Go to Court: Epidemiology and Class Actions in Taiwan", in Boudia, S. & Jas, N. ed., Powerless Science?: Science and Politics in a Toxic World, pp. 170-192, New York: Berghahn Books.
  45. Liu, T. J. ed. (2014), Environmental History in East Asia: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, London & New York: Routledge.
  46. Marks, H. (2000), The Progress of Experiment: Science and Therapeutic Reform in the United States, 1900-1990, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  47. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. (2010), Merchants of Doubt : How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, New York: Bloomsbury Press.
  48. Priest, G. (1985). "The Invention of Enterprise Liability: A Critical History of the Intellectual Foundations of Modern Tort Law," Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 14, pp. 461-527. https://doi.org/10.1086/467783
  49. Proctor, R. (1995), Cancer Wars : How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don't Know About Cancer, New York: Basic Books.
  50. Proctor, R. (2011), Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition, Berkeley: University of California Press.
  51. Rego, B. (2009), "The Polonium Brief a Hidden History of Cancer, Radiation, and the Tobacco Industry", Isis, Vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 453-484. https://doi.org/10.1086/644613
  52. Rosenberg, D. (1984), "The Causal Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A 'Public Law' Vision of the Tort System", Harvard Law Review, Vol. 97, pp. 856-857.
  53. Sanders, J. (1998), Bendectin on Trial: A Study of Mass Tort Litigation, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  54. Schuck, P. (1986), Agent Orange on Trial: Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts, Cambridge Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  55. Susser, M. (1985), "Epidemiology in the United States after World War II: The Evolution of Technique", Epidemiological Reviews, Vol. 7, pp. 147-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036280
  56. Susser, M. (1996), "Choosing a Future for Epidemiology: I. Eras and Paradigms", American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 86, no. 5, pp. 668-673. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.86.5.668
  57. Tesh, S. (2000), Uncertain Hazards, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  58. Thacker, S. & Berkelman, R. (1988), "Public Health Surveillance in the United States," Epidemiological Reviews, Vol. 10, pp. 164-190. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036021
  59. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (1964), Smoking and Health, Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service.
  60. Wright, R. (1985), "Causation in Tort Law", California Law Review, Vol. 73, pp. 1737-1828.