Abstract

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Daubert charged Merrell Dow with creating a drug (Bendectin) that caused birth defects in two infants. In charging Merrell Dow, Daubert relies upon the testimony of a scientific expert who “reanalyzed” a number of studies to show that Bendectin was the cause of said defects. Merrell Dow objected, contending that the “reanalysis” method was not based upon reliable science, to which the judge agreed. Upon appeal, the United States Supreme Court was charged with determining what scientific testimony is reliable enough to be admitted as evidence in court. This paper describes, not only the legal and definitional issues surrounding the Daubert cases but how the Daubert case could be used to prompt discussion about a variety of “what is X?” questions, e.g. “what is science?”, “what is an expert?”, “what is knowledge?”