The Gatekeeper | Radiolab Podcast

From the Radiolab podcast: How a U.S. Supreme Court decision made judges the ultimate gatekeepers of what makes good science in the courtroom.
This week, Reporter Peter Smith and Senior Producer Matt Kielty tell the story of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that set the standard for scientific expertise in a courtroom, i.e., whether an expert can testify in a lawsuit. They also tell the story of the Daubert family - the Dauberts of “Daubert v Merrell Dow” - whose win before the nine justices translated into a deeper loss.
This is the story of a decision that has upended the way courts approach science and expertise. It has affected abortion law, gun and police violence as well as mass shootings (it played a role in how the courts dealt with George Floyd's death and Kyle Rittenhouse), but also environmental law (including with Monsanto and Deepwater Horizon) and medical cases (like Johnson & Johnson's, whose talcum powder was deemed to have caused many cancers). It started with a pregnant woman dealing with debilitating nausea and vomiting. Her doctor prescribed Bendectin. Her son, Jason, was born with birth defects. Years later, in a long legal battle that included many scientific experts, including a researcher who investigated how Bendectin thwarted the development of limbs in chicken embryos, they took their case to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
Episode Segments:
0:00 Joyce Daubert takes Bendectin for nausea and Jason is born with birth defects
16:25 The Dauberts take Merrell Dow to Court over Bendectin
30:49 The US Supreme Court's decision and its impact on science and expertise in the courtroom
🎧 Subscribe to Radiolab wherever you listen to podcasts: bit.ly/3trXDLe
🔎 Subscribe to Radiolab on RUclips: bit.ly/3I9KI53
🌱 Check out Radiolab's Starter Kit Playlist: bit.ly/3sX8f4P
👍 Like this video ✏️ and leave us a comment!
Follow Radiolab:
Instagram - / radiolab
Twitter - / radiolab
Facebook - / radiolab
Support Radiolab by becoming a member of The Lab today: www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/...
Guests in this episode include:
Joyce Daubert, Bill Daubert and their son Jason Daubert, of "Daubert v Merrell Dow" fame.
Attorney Barry Nace, of Paulson & Nace, who represented the Dauberts
Attorney Pamela Yates, who represented Merrell Dow
Stuart Newman, of New York Medical College
Epidemiologist Steven Lam, who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization
Mike Gottesman, of Georgetown University Law Center
Photo illustration Josh Gosfield.
Video by Anna Rascouët-Paz.
Captioning by W. Harry Fortuna.

[@TitanicDundee]

I love radiolab but this was definitely a Jonny Nash episode i.e. there were more questions than answers. Was the Daubert ruling better or worse for claimants than the Frye ruling? The meta-analysis done on the human studies showed 3% birth deformities in the group taking the drug and those not taking the drug in early pregnancy. The cell/animal studies showed limb development was adversely effected by taking the drug so surely a sub-analysis of the data was done to look at this deformity specifically. What did that sub-analysis show? There are many more questions but these are just two.

[@moselymorahashi827]

Hear hear

[@sbgroen]

Excellent podcast!!!

[@moselymorahashi827]

I love Radiolab

[@rebeccasheikh548]

p̶r̶o̶m̶o̶s̶m̶