In 2008, in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider scientific studies that a litigant had funded. Despite this rejection, many courts have failed even to recognize the dangers of relying on such potentially biased research. As a result, standards for the admission of scientific evidence have evolved without accounting for the risks posed by industry-influenced evidence. This Note argues for meaningful admissibility reviews via mandatory disclosure of industry influence. In this context, the evidentiary fraud doctrine should guide applications of Frye v. United States and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
- Journal title
Boston College Law Review
- Date submitted
6 September 2022