Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Inc refers to a Supreme Court decision stating that federal courts should generally allow admission of all relevant evidence.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the criteria for admitting expert scientific testimony in federal court. The case involved a group of families who sued Merrell Dow, alleging that the company's anti-nausea drug, Bendectin, caused birth defects in their children. The plaintiffs sought to introduce expert testimony from several scientists who had conducted studies linking the drug to birth defects.

The Daubert ruling established the following criteria for admitting expert testimony:

  1. The expert's theory or technique must be testable and falsifiable.
  2. The technique or theory must be subject to peer review and publication.
  3. The technique or theory must have a known error rate.
  4. The technique or theory must be generally accepted in the scientific community.

The Daubert standard has since been used in many court cases involving expert scientific testimony. It has been controversial, with some critics arguing that it has led to the exclusion of valid scientific evidence in court cases.