AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Berger, M. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Berger, M. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Health Law
Right arrow Health Policy
Right arrow Government
July 2005, Vol 95, No. S1 | American Journal of Public Health S59-S65
© 2005 American Public Health Association
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.044701

PUBLIC HEALTH MATTERS

What Has a Decade of Daubert Wrought?

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:


Home page
 American Politics ResearchHome page
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]

Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
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]

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

Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
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]

Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
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]

Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
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]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the American Public Health Association