What was the main result of the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case?

The Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case established significant legal standards for the admissibility of expert testimony in federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the expert's evidence was deemed unreliable and did not meet the necessary criteria for scientific validity. This ruling put an emphasis on the need for expert testimony to be based on methods that are not only relevant but also reliable, thereby setting a precedent for how courts assess expert evidence in future cases.

In this case, the Court highlighted several factors for judicial consideration when determining the reliability of expert testimony, including whether the theory or technique has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, its known or potential error rate, and its general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. By concluding that the evidence presented by the expert did not satisfy these criteria, the Court reinforced a more stringent standard of admissibility, which has had lasting implications in legal contexts involving scientific evidence.