Science and Law: The Gleevec Case

摘要

Laws passed by the Legislature in a democracy are always subject to judicial interpretation. In India, with very few exceptions, laws are framed by the executive, debated, refined, amended and enacted by Parliament and interpreted and enforced by the judiciary. Litigation is a popular pastime in democracies and lawyers abound. Lawyers, by definition, can provide the most compelling arguments to support completely opposing points of view. Courtroom dramas can provide riveting theater, both in real life and on the screen. Spencer Tracy’s performance as Clarence Darrow in Inherit the Wind, the 1960 movie version of the 1925 Scopes ‘monkey’ trial, drew public attention to Darwin’s ideas on evolution and highlighted the infirmities of the arguments for creationism. A vast majority of people (I am amongst them) view lawyers from a great distance, often bemused by the ability of practitioners of the legal profession to deal easily with contradictions and ambiguities, without the slightest sign of discomfort. It is the ability to be able to speak on all sides of a debate that sets lawyers apart. Unsurprisingly, lawyers swell the ranks of politicians in democracies. Laws can be hard to frame. When confounded by the intricacies of law, ordinary people are sometimes driven to exclaim, as Mr Bumble famously did in Oliver Twist: ‘The law is an ass’. Eminent lawyers can transform into learned judges, often compelled to use their erudition to weigh both sides of a complex argument in order to deliver a final judgement.