HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Berger, M. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Berger, M. A. Related Collections Health Law Health Policy Government

Margaret A. Berger, JD

The author is with Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, NY.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Margaret A. Berger, JD, Brooklyn Law School, 250 Joralemon Street, Room 911, Brooklyn, NY 11201 (e-mail: margaret.berger{at}brooklaw.edu).

There have been changes within the judicial system that may be attributable to opinions on the admissibility of expert testimony that began with the Supreme Court’s 1993 decision in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. After surveying Daubert and subsequent related Supreme Court opinions, I examine a number of questions.

Do the factors courts apply post-Daubert in ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony make scientific sense? Has Daubert had an impact on the willingness of scientists to become expert witnesses? What do we know about Daubert’s impact on improving science in the court room? What has been Daubert’s effect on access to the courts? Does Daubert further public policy objectives of protecting the public against harm?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Buchman The Effects of Ideology on Federal Trial Judges' Decisions to Admit Scientific Expert Testimony American Politics Research, September 1, 2007; 35(5): 671 - 693. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. Bingham, L. Boden, R. Clapp, P. Hoppin, S. Krimsky, D. Michaels, D. Ozonoff, and A. Robbins BINGHAM ET AL. RESPOND Am J Public Health, February 1, 2006; 96(2): 206 - 207. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Michaels Scientific Evidence and Public Policy Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S5 - S7. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Melnick A Daubert Motion: A Legal Strategy to Exclude Essential Scientific Evidence in Toxic Tort Litigation Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S30 - S34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Michaels and C. Monforton Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Public's Health and Environment Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S39 - S48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Wagner The Perils of Relying on Interested Parties to Evaluate Scientific Quality Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S99 - S106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]