A ruling by the Supreme Court in 1993 established guidelines for evaluating
what scientific evidence would be admissible in court. This decision has had
profound effects in the intervening years, dramatically tightening the
standards and leading to exclusion of many experts and their data and
interpretations. Critics assert that the application of "Daubert" has gone
too far, preventing juries from hearing pertinent science, and that the
process adds strong bias against cases in which plaintiffs are using
scientific evidence to establish harm.