Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) Assignment

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) - Assignment Example Regarding this issue, was the court’s mandate in determining the general standard for the admittance of expert scientific testimony, in the case of a federal trial. As the petitioners, Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller were minors born with serious birth defects. Their parents on behalf of the two, sued the respondent, alleging the cause of the defects to be attributable to their mother’s ingestion of Bendectin. As a prescription anti-nausea drug, marketed by the respondent, they were of the view that the entity was liable for criminal neglect amongst other irregularities. This necessitated research studies which eventually led to the lack of direct linkage between the drug and birth defects in human beings. The respondent showcased an affidavit, from a renowned leading expert on various risks associated to exposure to different chemical substances. He was of the view that the drug was not associated with any form of defects, with no study having found it is having the characteristics of a human teratogen. Consequently, he viewed maternal utility of the drug, during the first pregnancy trimester, as not showing any risk factors for human birth defects. The petitioners, not contesting the aforementioned published details, instead respond to the motion by way of utilizing the testimony of eight experts, working for the firm. They did earlier on come to the conclusion that the drug can cause birth defects. Basing their conclusions on both ‘in vivo’ (live) and ‘in vitro’ (test tube) animal studies, a link was found, between the drug and resultant malformations. In addition, was the aspect that pharmacological studies, in regard to the drug’s chemical structure; purported to show similarities to that of other substances that were known to cause birth defects. Last, was the fact that ‘reanalysis’ of previously published epidemiological (human statistical) studies, further portrayed the lack of conclusiveness; in regard to matters pertaining chemical