In the 1993 landmark case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the United States Supreme Court articulated its position on the admissibility of scientific evidence. The Court reasoned that federal judges should rely on the processes scientists use to identify unreliable research, including the process of peer review, to determine when scientific evidence should be inadmissible. In response, lawyers and their clients, seeking to rely on such evidence, have begun funding and publishing their own research with the primary intention of providing support to cases they are litigating. This Article examines the phenomenon of litigation-generated science, how it potentially undermines the Daubert review process, and how such evidence should be handled by the scientific community and by courts under Daubert.
William L. Anderson, Barry M. Parsons & Drummond Rennie,
Daubert's Backwash: Litigation-Generated Science,
U. Mich. J. L. Reform
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol34/iss4/3