The Nature article, while damning, mixes two completely unrelated issues.

Just because someone is not "sick" from asbestos exposure does not necessarily mean they have no cause of action or are not entitled to compensation. The real debate regarding asbestos litigation is whether the aggregate assets of the defendants, which are finite and inadequate to satisfy all actual and potential claims, should be pooled now for something approaching an equitable distribution to those who suffered either actual present harm or the risk of future harm (i.e., medical monitoring costs or even a probabilistic recovery based on their chances of contracting pleural thickening, asbestosis or mesothelioma in the future) -- or, as is presently the case, should the money only go to the first plaintiffs who win the race to get to the courthouse and win full recoveries, until the last of the defendants is finally bankrupt, leaving future plaintiffs with no one to sue?

Meanwhile, using questionable expert testimony is a phenomenon that potentially exists in any litigation. I'm sure that defense attornies are well aware of this abuse (or soon will be), and will try their best to screen out such unreliable evidence at trial.

What a sad, legaleze commentary from 'KipEsquire'.

Creating an idealistic and beneficial growth industry - trial lawyers protecting the future rights of unknown and unknowable parties facing unknown and unknowable future risks by financially destroying what were once thought to be good commercial organizations that are now known by enlightened people to have been very, very bad.

It's a little like crows picking over the bones of a beached whale.

"Pooled" resources, indeed. Not said, of course, is that whether or not it is needed to benefit one of the new class of 'victims' described, to support the endeavors of the crows the pool is continuously being pumped drier and drier in the the process, until finally it is but a tiny gurgle - lost forever on the sands of time.