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


     

AJPH First Look, published online ahead of print Dec 27, 2005
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
AJPH.2005.076638v1
96/2/206    most recent
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gori, G. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gori, G. B.
Related Collections
Right arrow Health Law
Right arrow Health Policy
Right arrow Prevention
Right arrow Public Health Practice
Right arrow Government
February 2006, Vol 96, No. 2 | American Journal of Public Health 206
© 2006 American Public Health Association
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.076638

LETTER

DAUBERT’S MENACE

Gio Batta Gori, DSc, MPH

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Gio Batta Gori, DSc, MPH, The Health Policy Center, 6704 Barr Rd, Bethesda, MD 20816 (e-mail: gorigb@msn.com).

Because this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

A sea of ink in a recent Journal supplement1 contains much criticism of the Supreme Court’s Daubert opinion. Most of this criticism is based on the perception that the opinion imposes unattainable scientific standards of absolute proof that would impede justice. Yet Daubert aims only to ensure that testimony proffered as scientific is not raw ipse dixit opinion. It does so by offering 2 primary criteria: that an issue be testable by the scientific method and that an error rate be stated. Corollary but not essential questions refer to scientific consensus and peer-reviewed publication. Given further that Daubert ’s guidelines . . . [Full Text]






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Public Health Association