Inc. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

Anyone who watched the O. J. Simpson trial, or any number of other high-profile 1990s cases such as the trial of brothers Lyle and Erik Menendez for the murder of their parents, is familiar with the use of "expert witnesses." These are specialists, usually in the natural or social sciences, brought in by one or both sides (whether prosecution or defense, plaintiff or defendant) in civil and criminal trials to bolster the position of that side by offering an informed opinion.

But are they really experts? James Q. Wilson in the Chronicle of Higher Education takes issue with that idea, particularly as applied to social sciences such as psychology. Many of these, he wrote, "provide paid testimony in which they inflate their own scientific credentials" to offer their clients the benefit of what Wilson called "`pretend' science." Yet Ivar Roth, former president and board member of the Forensic Consultants Organization of Orange County, California, told USA Today, "Contrary to popular belief, expert witnesses are required to be truthful. Professional engineers in particular can't give half truths, but must give the complete truth, revealing the negatives as well as the positives on each case."