Keeping Bad Science out of the Courtroom: Why Post-Daubert Courts Are Correct in Excluding Opinions Based on Animal Studies From Birth-Defects Cases

This Comment argues that courts should keep animal studies out of the courtroom in birth-defects toxic-torts cases. This will not only result in proper exclusion of unreliable evidence, but will also lead to valuable resources being directed to more worthy alternative tests, ultimately reducing human and animal suffering as birth defects are eradicated. Part I sets forth the evidentiary standards used to determine the admissibility of evidence and then presents background information on birth defects and how they are studied. It also discusses the problems inherent with animal tests and the contrasting value of human data. Part II explores the admissibility of animal studies in post-Daubert birth-defects cases and argues that exclusion is warranted. Part II then urges redirection of resources to human studies and promising alternatives to animal tests, and it discusses the impact of excluding expert opinions based on animal tests from court cases. Part ill concludes by summarizing the case against admission of animal studies and the positives that would result from exclusion