Titre : | What has a decade of Daubed wrought ? (2005) |
Auteurs : | Margaret-A Berger |
Type de document : | Article |
Dans : | American journal of public health (vol. 95, 2005) |
Pagination : | S59-S65 |
Langues: | Anglais |
Mots-clés : | Expertise ; Etats Unis ; Amérique ; Amérique du Nord |
Résumé : | [BDSP. Notice produite par INIST-CNRS 2WJR0xR4. Diffusion soumise à autorisation]. 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 ? |