I come from the Maryland State. The state uses the Daubert’s rule in matters of scientific tests. It has put in place the stringent measures pertaining to the creation of scientific tests on the health of individuals. Research indicates that the law governing the Maryland State is tough when it comes to scientific tests on both animals and human beings. One is not supposed to come up with personalized views pertaining to scientific tests. Experts must only engage in scientific tests that have been adequately verified and proven by scientific experts. The law in this state provides that there should be no reliability on the details availed by experts regarding their own personal experiences. There should be only maximum reliability on the information that is provided by scientific research agencies because of the adequacy of the information. Additionally, it is believed that scientific agencies have engaged in wider research and have proven some facts.
This paper explicates the Daubert vs. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals case as it governs the scientific evidence in Maryland.
In case of Daubert vs. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller had been born bearing critical birth defects. The birth defects that they had been born with necessitated them and their parents to sue Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals claiming that it had used the drug, Bendectin, which caused the their inborn defects. Green (1998) asserts that Daubert and Schuller submitted adequate evidence from their expert claiming that Bendectin could result into serious birth defects. On the other hand, Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals removed the case from the federal court and went for the summary judgment concerning their expert’s submission of published scientific documents showing that there was no linkage between Bendectin and any birth defect. The scientific expert representing Daubert and Schuller had based on in vivo and in vitro animals studies and reanalysis of other studies that had been published, but had not been proven by the scientific experts. Therefore, the district court granted a summary judgment to Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals. Daubert and Schuller were not satisfied with the summary and moved to the Ninth Circuit for the further clarification of the matter. The Ninth Circuit also refused to admit the plaintiffs’ suggestion that Bendectin could actually cause birth defects. The case further moved to the Supreme Court but had similar outcomes. The judges consistently held that Bendectin was endorsed by scientific experts, and there existed many reservations on whether it could lead to birth defects. It is not adequate to base on belief and personal opinions of an expert whose suggestions are still under study. Therefore, the judges concluded that it is vital for individuals to engage in scientific tests based on the resolutions of scientific experts instead of relying on the evidence suggested by an individual expert.
Baldwin, Hare & McGovern (1998) affirm that Maryland is strict on matters relating to scientific methodology. Any scientific methodology is introduced in a procedural manner. People should not come up with personal conclusions concerning the particular scientific evidence, but must ensure that they adequately link with scientific experts that will help in proving such methodologies. Scientific methodology in Maryland is introduced after in-depth analysis of all the details relating to it. There must always be deep research studies pertaining to the method before it is officially introduced in the state. In addition, a scientific methodology would be introduced in cases where there has been adequate presentation of data stating that the method is effective and can be proven beyond reasonable doubts that it has no negative effects on the lives of individuals. Publications relating to the scientific methodology would be introduced only in instances, where immense research about the methodology establishes that it is adequate and would be positive to individuals. Butler (2011) reiterates that the state believes that any scientific methodology must undergo immense verification before it is introduced for the use in various purposes. The introduction must be procedural in order to ensure that there are no negative effects among individuals.
In the introduction of a scientific method such as the use of alternative drugs to alleviate the effects of HIV/AIDS people must understand the procedure to follow in the introduction of this new scientific methodology in Maryland. Individuals who come up with new scientific discoveries pertaining to different issues must register with scientific experts even as they continue with their research about methodology. The individual must forward the new discovery to the laboratories existing within the state, in order to facilitate further research. It is vital to note that the individual would also get the opportunity to take part in further analysis of the scientific methodology and proving of the initial assertions about the effectiveness of the method in curing individuals. Other scientific experts would help the individual who discovered the methodology in studying the various components that make up the new discovery. This would be done in order to determine whether it is acceptable for the human body or not. After the determination of the components making up the scientific methodology, there would be an analysis of the side effects of the methodology on the health of individuals. It would be widely rejected, in cases where it poses extreme negative effects among individuals. The process would only proceed in cases where it is determined that it does not threaten lives of individuals.
According to Dahnke & Dreher (2010), the measure of side effects is effective in determining the acceptability of methodology, hence, determining the rate of error. The proof that there are no side effects of methodology would necessitate its improvement. The methodology has to be peer-reviewed by experts in the scientific field. A body of scientific experts would engage in further improvements of methodology in order to ensure that it is safe for individuals. Improvements would boost its acceptability in the entire community. Laboratory tests would play an instrumental role in proving the significance of methodology in the lives of individuals. It would be embraced because of the effectiveness that would be drawn from the tests. There would be a final publication of the scientific methodology and allowance of its use in the necessary situations. Therefore, analysis of the scientific methodology by experts would play a vital role in boosting its acceptability.
In conclusion, Maryland State utilizes the Daubert’s rule in the matters of scientific tests. In line with this ruling, the State has in place stringent measures concerning the introduction of scientific methodologies that are applied to the health of individuals. The court system in Maryland necessitates all individuals to prove that there was adequate scientific research pertaining to the scientific methodology that is being introduced. Experts are not supposed to come up with personalized views pertaining to scientific tests. The law of this state provides that there should be no reliability on the details availed by experts regarding their own personal experiences. There should be only maximum reliability on the information that is provided by scientific research agencies because of the adequacy of the information. Scientific methodologies in this state are introduced in a procedural manner by putting into consideration their side effects on the lives of individuals. New scientific methodologies must be adequately researched before being allowed to operate. The court provides that scientific experts must verify that there would be no negative effects among individuals because of application of the methodology. Thus, scientific methodologies must be based on scientific experts rather than individual experts.