1. Annas GJ. Scientific evidence in the courtroom: The death of the Frye rule. NEJM. 1994;330(14):1018–21

2. Frye v. United States, 293 F 1013 (December 3, 1923).

3. Daubert v.Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2786 (June 28, 1993).

4. Fed. Rule Evid. 702. Available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule702. Accessed in June 2007.

5. Edmond G, Mercer D. Daubert and the exclusionary ethos: The convergence of corporate and judicial attitudes toward the admissibility of expert evidence in tort litigation. Law and Policy. 2004;26(2):231–57.

6. Cranor C. Toxic Torts: Science, Law, and the Possibility of Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

7. Daubert v.Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Daubert II), 43 F3d 1311 (1995).

8. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).

9. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).

10. Conley JM, Gaylord SW. Science in the state courts: Daubert and the problem of outcomes. Judges’ J. 2005;44(5):6–15.

11. Logerquist v. McVey, 1 P.3d 113 (April 19, 2000).

12. Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Causation and causal inference in epidemiology. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(suppl 1):S144–S50.

13. Haack S. Trial and error: The Supreme Court’s philosophy of science. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(suppl 1):S66–S73.

14. Ozonoff D. Epistemology in the courtroom: A little ‘‘knowledge’’ is a dangerous thing. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(suppl 1):S13–S15.

15. Kassirer JP, Cecil JS. Inconsistency in evidentiary standards for medical testimony: Disorder in the courts. JAMA. 2002;288(11):1382–87.

16. McGarity T. On the prospect of ‘‘Daubertizing’’ judicial review of risk assessment. Law and Contemporary Problems. 2003;66(155).

17. Weisgram et al. v. Marley Co. et al., 528 U.S. 440 (February 22, 2000). Available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99–161.ZS.html. Accessed in June 2007.

18. Ozonoff D. Legal causation and responsibility for causing harm. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(suppl 1):S35–S38.

19. Huber PW. Galileo’s Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. New York: Basic Books, 1993.

20. Vidmar N. Expert evidence, the adversary system, and the jury. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(suppl 1):S137–S43.

21. Allison v. McGhan Medical Corporation, 184 F3d 1300 (1999).

22. Lempert R. Civil juries and complex cases: Taking stock after twelve years. In: Litan RE, ed. Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1993:181–247.

23. Berger M. Statements made during interviews conducted with SKAPP staff, May 15–June 6, 2003.

24. Castellow v. Chevron USA, 97 F.Supp. 2d 780 (2000).

25. Court order no. 29: Addressing subject-matter jurisdiction, expert testimony,and sanctions. In re: silica products litigation; MDL docket no. 1553. Signed by U.S. District Judge Jack JG of the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division. June 30, 2005. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/MDL-1553.pdf. Accessed in June 2007.

26. Glater JD. The tort wars, at a turning point. New York Times. October 9, 2005.

27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chemical hazard data availability study: What do we really know about the safety of high production volume chemicals? April 1998. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/pubs/general/hazchem.pdf. Accessed in June 2007.

28. Gatowski SI, Dobbin SA, Richardson JT et al. Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law Hum Behav. 2001;25(5):433–58.

29. Nelson v. American Home Products Corp., 92 F.Supp. 2d 954 (March 24, 2000).

30. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Press release: FDA moves to end use of bromocriptine for post-partum breast engorgement. Issued August 17, 1994. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00594.html. Accessed in June 2007.

31. Brasher v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, 160 F.Supp. 2d 1291 (September 21, 2001).

32. Cecil JS. Ten years of judicial gatekeeping under Daubert. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(suppl 1):S74–S80.

33. Jasanoff S. Law’s knowledge: science for justice in legal settings. Am J Public Health 2005;95(suppl 1):S49-S58.

34. Friedman LC, Daynard RA, Banthin CN. How tobacco-friendly science escapes scrutiny in the courtroom. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(suppl 1):S16–S20.

35. Berger MA. What has a decade of Daubert wrought? Am J Public Health. 2005;95(suppl 1):S59–S65.

36. RAND Institute. Changes in the standards for admitting expert evidence in federal civil cases since the Daubert decision. 2001. Available at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1439.pdf. Accessed in June 2007.

37. Goldsmith WJ. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the U.S. House of Representatives. June 14, 2001.

38. U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Scientific information in federal rulemaking. 2002. Available at: http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/regulatory/scientific_rulemaking.htm. Accessed in June 2007.

39. Krimsky S. The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(suppl 1):S129–S36.

40. McGarity TO. Daubert and the proper role for the courts in health, safety, and environmental regulation. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(suppl 1):S92–S98.

41. Neff RA, Goldman LR. Regulatory parallels to Daubert: Stakeholder influence, ‘‘sound science,’’ and the delayed adoption of health-protective standards. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(suppl 1):S81–S91.

42. Wagner W. The perils of relying on interested parties to evaluate scientific quality. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(suppl 1):S99–S106.