Expert testimony in the silica cases: The fallacy of scientific objectivity—some observations

Abstract

In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals establishing guidance for federal courts to permit the use of expert testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically Rule 702. This and subsequent decisions require trial court judges to review expert testimony before a party puts expert testimony before the jury to assure that the expert's testimony is probative; i.e., that it is both reliable and relevant. When experts fail to follow accepted scientific methods and practices, the courts must reject the evidence as unreliable, ruling on such motions to exclude the experts’ testimony in the pre-trial stage. In the case of In re Silica , the court's non-technical analysis showed how common sense and good judgment can help evaluate the soundness of a technical expert's testimony.