Under Daubert, what matters most for the admissibility of scientific evidence?

Under Daubert, what matters most for the admissibility of scientific evidence?

• A. Reliability of the method.
• B. Whether it was peer-reviewed.
• C. The popularity of the theory.
• D. The number of experiments.

Answer: (A)

Under Daubert, the key question is whether the method or theory is scientifically reliable enough to assist the trier of fact. The trial judge must gatekeep to ensure the evidence rests on trustworthy foundations, not on popularity or sheer quantity of work. Daubert offers several factors that illuminate reliability—whether the method is testable, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, the known error rates, and the existence of standards governing its use, plus general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. While peer review and other factors matter, they serve to illuminate reliability rather than stand alone as a guarantee. The core idea is that admissibility turns on the reliability of the method itself, not on how fashionable or widely accepted it is.

Under Daubert, the key question is whether the method or theory is scientifically reliable enough to assist the trier of fact. The trial judge must gatekeep to ensure the evidence rests on trustworthy foundations, not on popularity or sheer quantity of work. Daubert offers several factors that illuminate reliability—whether the method is testable, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, the known error rates, and the existence of standards governing its use, plus general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. While peer review and other factors matter, they serve to illuminate reliability rather than stand alone as a guarantee. The core idea is that admissibility turns on the reliability of the method itself, not on how fashionable or widely accepted it is.