The U.S. Supreme Court case William Daubert, et ux., etc., et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1992 revolved around the admissibility of expert testimony or evidence in federal courts. The plaintiffs alleged that their birth defects were caused by a drug manufactured by Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and sought to prove this through expert scientific testimony which was based on new research methods not yet widely accepted in the scientific community. The court ruled that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 set the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony and it did not require general acceptance within the relevant field as per Frye standard (a precedent). Instead, judges would serve as gatekeepers ensuring any such evidence is reliable and relevant before being admitted into trial proceedings - known as "Daubert Standard". This landmark decision significantly changed how science is applied in American courts.

The dissenting opinion in the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case, delivered by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justices White and Blackmun, argued that the majority's decision to replace the Frye standard with a new reliability test was unnecessary and potentially disruptive. The dissenters contended that there was no indication Congress intended such a change when it adopted Rule 702 of Federal Rules of Evidence. They also expressed concern about judges being tasked with determining scientific validity, arguing this could lead them into unfamiliar territory beyond their expertise. Furthermore, they feared this might result in inconsistent rulings across different courts due to varying interpretations of what constitutes 'reliable' science.