Court Rules on Use of Scientific Evidence

By Angier, Natalie | THE JOURNAL RECORD, July 3, 1993 | Go to article overview

Court Rules on Use of Scientific Evidence


Angier, Natalie, THE JOURNAL RECORD


In making its first ruling on the proper use of scientific evidence in the courtroom, the U.S. Supreme Court has assured that a great many judges will be frantically playing catch-up on the basics of scientific method.

Yet, lawyers and scientists on all sides of the contentious debate over how much so-called "junk" science is finding its way to juries said Monday's decision, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, was a thoughtful, fair and rational response to a messy and complex issue.

In a case involving a morning-sickness drug blamed for birth defects, the court ruled that federal judges must ensure that scientific evidence and testimony admitted in trials "is not only relevant, but reliable." The decision could have a vast and immediate effect on cases that rely in part on disputed scientific or technical matters, from the use of DNA fingerprinting and computerized ballistic analysis as evidence in criminal cases, to putative links between illness and chemical emissions from industrial plants in civil cases.

"This ruling could affect almost every piece of litigation in the federal courts from this point forward," said Paul Rothstein, professor of law at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., who wrote a brief filed on behalf of the pharmaceutical company. "Today's world is so complicated that experts are used on almost every issue that comes to trial."

The court rejected the most rigid arguments from the defendant, that scientific testimony could be dismissed from a case just because it had not been previously published in scientific journals or was not widely accepted by mainstream scientists. But the justices insisted that this somewhat liberal allowance did not mean that the courts should serve as circuses for any crackpot scientific theory a self-described "expert" witness might care to offer.

The court said federal judges must assume strong responsibility for the quality of the scientific evidence presented in their courts, and they must look at the data under question to make sure scientific conventions were followed in generating the results. The justices suggested that federal judges must consider the basics of scientific method _ for example, whether a theory presented is subject to reproducible experimentation without being falsified, a hallmark of rigorous science.

Lawyers and scientists agreed that the ruling could swiftly improve the caliber of science in the courtroom, cutting down on the number of cases that rely on dubious scientific ground, that lawyers might have tried to ram through to litigation because they had an expert with a university degree willing to testify for them.

The ruling will also mean that a case cannot be dismissed simply because one side's expert witness is a scientific maverick whose name does not often appear in the prestigious pages of journals like The New England Journal of Medicine.

"I can't think of how the court could have come up with a better opinion," said Steven G. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Court Rules on Use of Scientific Evidence
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.