
Shaken Baby Syndrome: Junk science or not? When lawyers set scientific standards - American Council on Science and Health
Shaken Baby Syndrome has increasingly been branded “junk science,” not because the medical consensus has disappeared, but because courts, some expert witnesses, and the media have created disputes over how these injuries occur. The real question is not whether every SBS prosecution is correct, but whether uncertainty in an individual case justifies discarding a diagnosis supported by a substantial body of medical evidence. Shaken baby syndrome (SBS) has acquired a new descriptor: “junk science.” The label has migrated from defense briefs and skeptical experts into court opinions, podcasts, headlines, and public debate. But calling a contested diagnosis “junk science” is not the same thing as proving it is—unless you believe the increasing onslaught of media hype and misleading headlines. Either we read that the alleged perpetrator has been convicted of shaking a baby, causing death or serious injury, or that the diagnosis is a sham. In a few cases, the verdict is overturned, or a new trial ordered. But headlines and legal cases calling the diagnosis fraud or “junk science” are proliferating.











