Daubert: The Most Influential Supreme Court Decision You've Never Heard Of

Berger MA. Expert Testimony: The Supreme Court’s Rules. Issues in Science and Technology. 2000 Summer.
Berger provides an excellent primer for readers wanting the basics of the Daubert, Joiner and Kumho decisions. In each case, the trial judge prevented plaintiff's experts from offering their testimony. Berger explains the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the terms “relevance” and “reliability” as they relate to expert testimony.

Clapp RW and D Ozonoff. Environment and Health: Vital Intersection or Contested Territory? Am J Law Med. 2004; 30(2/3): 189-215.
In this article, the authors describe how epidemiologists draw scientific inferences about causation and contrast this with post-Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. tort practices.

Dixon L and B Gill. Changes in the Standards for Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases Since the Daubert Decision. Prepared for the RAND Institute for Civil Justice. 2001.
In this analysis of district court opinions, the authors review changes in judges' evaluation of expert evidence since Daubert and subsequent responses from the parties proposing and challenging evidence.

National Academies, Policy Division. A Convergence of Science and Law: A Summary Report of the First Meeting of the Science, Technology, and Law Panel. 2001.
This report is a summary of the first meeting of the Science, Technology, and Law Panel of The National Academies, convened on March 16-17, 2000, at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The Science, Technology, and Law (STL) Program's purpose is to improve communication and promote understanding between the disparate but interconnected disciplines of science and the law. The purpose of the Panel's first meeting was to share information about a number of areas in which science and law interact so that all the members of the Panel, with their different backgrounds, would be in a better position to determine the Panel's future agenda.

SKAPP. Daubert: The Most Influential Supreme Court Ruling You've Never Heard Of (Abstract) (PDF Full Text). June 2003.
This report is a scientists' perspective on the 1993 Supreme Court decision Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Freudenburg WR. Seeding science, courting conclusions: Reexamining the intersection of science, corporate case, and the law. Sociological Forum. 2005; 20(1), pp. 3-33.

Despite its original intent - to ensure the reliability and relevance of evidentiary science - the 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. decision has propagated case law that applies litmus tests to expert testimony and excludes leigitimate scientific research on the basis of its failure to meet standards that may themselves be inappropriate. Though some judges exercise their Daubert "gatekeeping" responsibilities with restraint, others routinely exclude expert testimony that they interpret as not meeting certain criteria, even though respected scientists may reach different conclusions about that same data. Under Daubert, public health science in particular has been maligned, and progress towards understanding links between environnmental exposures and disease has been undermined. (SKAPP's Daubert Report (PDF))