title: The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done?
abstract: Flawed expert scientific testimony has compromised truth finding in American litigation, including in medical malpractice and in product liability cases. The Federal Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court in Daubert and other cases have established standards for testimony that include reliability and relevance, and established judges as gatekeepers. However, because of lack of understanding of scientific issues, judges have problems with this role, and juries have difficulties with scientific evidence. Professionals and the judiciary have made some advances, but a better system involving the court's use of neutral experts and a mechanism to hold experts accountable for improprieties is needed.
authors.affiliation: Department of Neurosurgery, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA.
authors.forename: H H
authors.initials: HH
authors.lastname: Kaufman
mesh_terms: D000932:Antiemetics / Q000009:adverse effects; D018427:Breast Implants / Q000009:adverse effects; D004025:Dicyclomine; D004319:Doxylamine / Q000009:adverse effects; D004338:Drug Combinations; D005104:Expert Testimony; D005260:Female; D005554:Forensic Medicine / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D008318:Malpractice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011736:Pyridoxine / Q000009:adverse effects; D014481:United States
chemical_list: D000932:Antiemetics; D004338:Drug Combinations; C004454:dicyclomine, doxylamine, pyridoxine drug combination; D004025:Dicyclomine; D004319:Doxylamine; D011736:Pyridoxine