-
12
pages
-
English
-
Documents
Description
David Egilman 12/11/2003 12:10:43 PM Record Type: Record To: David Egilman , Mabel E. Echols OMB_Peer_Review/OMB/EOP@EOP cc: "'Barry Castleman (bcastleman@earthlink.net)'" , "'David Michaels (eohdmm@gwumc.edu)'" , "'Jennifer Sass (jsass@nrdc.org)'" Subject: RE: OMB peer review Bulletin Comments from a public member who co nsults with industry and for injured workers Sorry attachment omitted from previous email. David Egilman MD, MPH degilman@egilman.com 508-472-2809 cell 425-699-7033 fax 8 North Main Street Suite 404 Attleboro, Ma 02703 www.egilman.com - peer review review.doc - omb_letter.doc b) Peer review Some courts have demanded that an expert’s opinions be based on data that has been published in peer review journals to determine whether she can testify before a jury. In addition courts have restricted experts opinions to those expressly stated by the authors of the published work. The courts have established two presumptions: (1) anything that is published in a peer review journal is “good science” and therefore admissible; and, (2) unless a theory, fact, and/or analysis has been previously published in a peer review journal such arguments and data cannot be "good science" and cannot form the basis for admissible expert testimony. 1The court in Daubert did not cite a single scientific authority ...
-
Publié par
-
Langue
English
Ajouté à mes notifications
Vous serez informé des prochaines publications.