Notebook

Table of Contents Appleaing Standards Farmer Dan Uncle Sam Wants You To Teach Alleged Vandal Free On Bond Hot Stuff Identity Crisis A federal appeals court's dismissal of a drug-liability lawsuit earlier this month may set a rigorous new standard for scientific evidence. In Daubert et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., two children, Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller, and their parents charged that an anti-nausea drug called Bendectin, taken by the mothers while pregnant, caused the chil

The Scientist Staff

Jan 22, 1995 | 4 min read

Table of Contents

A federal appeals court's dismissal of a drug-liability lawsuit earlier this month may set a rigorous new standard for scientific evidence. In Daubert et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., two children, Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller, and their parents charged that an anti-nausea drug called Bendectin, taken by the mothers while pregnant, caused the children's limb-reduction birth defects. The case was first decided in Merrell Dow's favor in United States District Court for the Southern District of California in 1989. In 1991, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco upheld the lower court's summary judgment that the standards of the scientific community--reliance on peer review, in this case--should outweigh other considerations in evaluating the admissibility of evidence. Then, in 1993, the Supreme...

Interested in reading more?

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!

Already a member?

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of