Note to users. If you're seeing this message, it means that your browser cannot find this page's style/presentation instructions -- or possibly that you are using a browser that does not support current Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing, and what you can do to make your experience of our site the best it can be.
The Wellcome Trust

Site Tools

  • AAAS
  • Subscribe
  • Feedback

Site Search

Search Advanced

Science 11 September 1998:
Vol. 281. no. 5383, p. 1578
DOI: 10.1126/science.281.5383.1578a
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

News of the Week

SCIENCE IN THE COURTROOM:
Should Engineer Witnesses Meet Same Standards as Scientists?

Jocelyn Kaiser

Five years ago, in the Daubert case, the U.S. Supreme Court gave trial judges more authority to throw out testimony from scientists that doesn't meet strict tests of scientific validity. Now the court may be ready to rule on whether judges should apply the same rules to testimony from other kinds of technical experts, an issue which has divided lower courts. The new case, Kumho v. Carmichael, involves the testimony of an engineer who claimed that a defective tire led to a fatal accident. The first judge rejected the expert testimony for not meeting the Daubert criteria, but an appellate court ruled that the standards did not apply in this case.

Read the Full Text

ADVERTISEMENT
Click Me!

ADVERTISEMENT
Click Me!

To Advertise     Find Products

Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online)