Your Honor, first of all, the reason I asked for side bar before is now that I see the context in which Dr. Speed--look at paragraph--11 made the remark about assumptions in the report, it had nothing to do with what they wrote about error rates. It had to do with their discussion of the ceiling principle and the ceiling principal is completely beyond the scope of this man's direct. I have been extremely careful not to get into ceiling principle, substructures or any of those issues at all. This entire letter--
Isn't the point here that he is making fun of the staff of the scholar who put together the report?
He is not making fun. What he is saying is, "It amazed me that assumptions escaped the notice of all the eminent people in the NRC panel." But the assumption is not an assumption at all having to do with his testimony as to error rates and the statistics involving error rates. It has to do with a completely separate issue--this was brought up in the Frye hearing--the ceiling principal, the product rule. He has not offered any testimony on the ceiling principle. That is different. The paragraph is simply limited to the committee's dealing with the ceiling principle and what is going to happen here is two problems; a 356 issue about completeness, and more importantly, we are going to have a 352 problem because we are going to get into the ceiling issue. We will get into all the issues about the ceiling principle and the product rule. You are talking about days of extra testimony and other witnesses and Professor Quinn coming in to testify about substructure and the like. It is absurd. This--
It brings in the ceiling principle and the product rule and the statement, "It amazed me about its assumptions" is clearly referring to the way the NRC committee handled the issue of the product rule and the ceiling principle. It is clearly referring to that. It is not referring to anything at all--it is not referring to anything at all that he has testified to. It would be as if, let's say, he criticized the NRC report. For a statistician, I understand that, but he is saying he was a scientist who says--criticizes the NRC for their assumptions about the role of lawyers or something.
Thanks, your Honor. Nice to get to say something. It is criticizing the people and here is the point. All those flashy quotes yesterday, half of them are from section 3 or chapter 3 and that is from this chapter. He is criticizing the people that wrote chapter 3. And I am entitled to elicit names, and the reality is there are two people who he thinks very highly of; Mary-Claire King and Eric Lander, so at least in terms of how he feels about those people and their product, which is chapter 3, I think I'm entitled to--I mean, I've already elicited--I just want to put it there and ask him a few more questions.
First of all, there is no testimony that those people wrote chapter 3. The lawyers already elicited that it is a consensus of opinion from the NRC committee people. There is no testimony that this chapter was written by one person or two people or three people. It is a completely unrelated point.
Mr. Harmon, I'm going to preclude you from putting this up on the elmo because it is just one sentence--
--out of a long letter. You may use the sentence, "It amazed me how its assumptions" referring to that particular chapter of the NRC report.
If you get into ceiling principles you open up all the problems. That is my suggestion. Don't go away.
The only thing I want to say is, your Honor, if you want to let him ask a question about assumptions, I would then say that the remarks should be limited to assumptions about the method for calculating that frequency so you don't write out the words "Ceiling principle."
This is a comment regarding the people who did the report and their, quote, eminence or non-eminence. All right. That is what it is restricted to.
KEY QUOTEWe've heard enough. This is a big tempest in a teapot here.
You are talking about days of extra testimony and other witnesses and Professor Quinn coming in to testify about substructure and the like. It is absurd.
This is a comment regarding the people who did the report and their, quote, eminence or non-eminence. All right. That is what it is restricted to.
All those flashy quotes yesterday, half of them are from section 3 or chapter 3 and that is from this chapter. He is criticizing the people that wrote chapter 3.