In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., laid out a new test for federal trial judges to use when determining the admissibility of expert testimony. In Daubert, the Court ruled that judges should act as gatekeepers, assessing the reliability of the scientific methodology and reasoning that supports expert testimony. The resulting judicial screening of expert testimony has been particularly consequential. While the Supreme Court sought to bring better science into the courtroom, questions remain about whether the lower courts’ application of Daubert accords with scientific practices. Discussions of the Committee on Daubert Standards summarizes discussions held by an ad hoc committee of the The National Academies to consider the impact of Daubert and subsequent Supreme Court opinions and to identify questions for future study.
The Science, Technology, and Law Program convened an ad hoc committee to organize a discussion among scientists and lawyers to consider alternative approaches to the Daubert model used by federal judges to assess the admissibility of scientific evidence.
March 27, 2005
January 27, 2005
A summary of meetings, Discussions of the Committee on Daubert Standards, was issued in 2006.
Margaret Berger, Co-chair
Suzanne J. and Norman Miles Professor of Law
Brooklyn Law School
Doug Weed, Co-chair
Chief, Office of Preventive Oncology
National Cancer Institute (NIH)
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Project Director, Program on Scientific and Technical Evidence
Division of Research
Federal Judicial Center
Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of Populations
Head, Laboratory of Populations
The Rockefeller University and Columbia University
Associate Professor of Oncology, Pediatrics, Epidemiology, and Biostatistics
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
Professor of Epidemiology and Statistics
University of California, Los Angeles
Stein, Mitchell & Mezines
Professor of Law
University of Virginia
Arthur Liman Professor of Law
Yale Law School
Federal Judical Center
This project was sponsored by the Common Benefit Trust and the Starr Foundation.