What constitutes credible scientific evidence for the court? How does the court evaluate scientific testimony and studies?
Special masters do not have to follow the Federal Rules of Evidence in vaccine hearings. According to the Vaccine Rule 8 of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, “the special master will consider all relevant and reliable evidence, governed by principles of fundamental fairness to both parties.” Read more HERE. But what constitutes reliable scientific evidence is at the heart of this proceeding. The Special Masters must assess the merit and credibility of many conflicting scientific studies and experts. The respondent asserts that petitioners must rely on “good science,” as outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1993 decision on how judges must instruct juries about scientific evidence (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)). It argues that reliable science means tested hypotheses, laboratory results, testimony that withstands cross-examination and thorough studies. Petitioners agree that scientific evidence must be reliable, but they point to the Althen and
