IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/10.2105-ajph.2004.044701_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What has a decade of Daubert wrought?

Author

Listed:
  • Berger, M.A.

Abstract

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?

Suggested Citation

  • Berger, M.A., 2005. "What has a decade of Daubert wrought?," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(S1), pages 59-65.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2004.044701_7
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.044701
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2004.044701
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2105/AJPH.2004.044701?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Herbert M. Kritzer & Darryn C. Beckstrom, 2007. "Daubert in the States: Diffusion of a New Approach to Expert Evidence in the Courts," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(4), pages 983-1006, December.
    2. Tobias Pfrommer & Timo Goeschl & Alexander Proelss & Martin Carrier & Johannes Lenhard & Henrike Martin & Ulrike Niemeier & Hauke Schmidt, 2019. "Establishing causation in climate litigation: admissibility and reliability," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 67-84, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2004.044701_7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.