The Supreme Court’s View of Science: Has <i>Daubert</i> Exorcised the Certainty Demon?

The Supreme Court's mandate in Daubert that experts who give testimony based on science must confine themselves to valid scientific knowledge seems tautologically obvious, and hardly an issue requiring the attention of the nation's nine highest judges. The debate that led to Daubert was generated, however, by opponents of judicial screening who argued that holding experts to scientific standards somehow imposes an undue burden of proof on plaintiffs, especially in toxic tort cases - and the Supreme Court's decision has not put the issue completely to rest. Science, according to this "relaxed standards" argument, demands certainty far beyond the law's "preponderance of the evidence" requirement. As the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stated in Ferebee v. Chevron Chemical Co., "[iln a courtroom, the test for allowing a plaintiff to recover in a tort suit of this type is not scientific certainty but legal sufficiency.... [T]he fact that ... science would require more evidence before conclusively considering the causation question resolved is irrelevant."