Discussion of the Committee on Daubert Standards Summary of Meetings (2006) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Evidence Synthesis: The Question of Causation
4 Evidence Synthesis: The Question of Causation
Pages 11-16
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 11... ...
The power of science arises from the objectivity of its methods. Scientists, nevertheless, generally recognize the limits of their methods and have developed best practices for addressing them: data sharing in open meetings, peer review, publication of results, disclosing conflicts of interests, and maintaining active research programs examining the validity of their methods as methods.
|
From page 12... ...
Epidemiology studies obtain observational data on different groups of individuals to determine if exposure results in different outcomes. Methods used by epidemiologists to examine scientific evidence for general causation typically involve a system atic narrative review of the literature that may exclude some studies on grounds of poor quality or lack of relevance.
|
From page 13... ...
In effect, some courts have required standards for expert testimony that exceed those that relevant experts would use to assess causation. Finally, it has been the practice of some courts to assess evidence offered to prove causality piece by piece, that is, looking at the results of one scientific investigation as an isolated event rather than considering these findings in the context of other research.
|
From page 14... ...
· Do courts and scientists agree on how to assess indi vidual studies? If a particular study is insufficient by itself to conclusively demonstrate causation is it there fore unreliable evidence on which experts should not rely in drawing causal inferences?
|
From page 15... ...
. ICMJE stated that it will consider a trial for publication only if it has been registered before the enrollment of the first patient and took as its goal "to foster a comprehensive, publicly available database of clinical trials." Further, ICMJE called for such information to be publicly available "to guide decisions about patient care," as patients "deserve to know that decisions about their care rest on all of the evidence, not just the trials that authors decided to report and that journal editors decided to publish." Concerns about the availability of relevant studies, led several members of the NRC committee to ask if there should be consequences when an information gap exists because a party to a lawsuit failed to undertake studies that need to be done or failed to divulge negative results?
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.