Back to Basics: Courts' Treatment of Agency Animal Studies After Daubert

Federal agencies have long relied on animal studies to determine, at least preliminarily, whether or not a particular substance is carcinogenic. The important question is: Should those studies be admissible in court? Seventeen years ago Daubert provided courts with a framework for answering that question, and the answer has, in most cases, been “no.” Some courts, however, have carved out an exception for the place where agencies and courts collide. Where an agency (specifically, the Environmental Protection Agency) has relied on animal studies in order to designate a substance as “carcinogenic,” courts have admitted those studies, even where they would not have if the study had been conducted by a private party. This Note argues that this approach is a mistake. The EPA’s animal testing guidelines give animal studies neither the reliability nor relevance demanded by Daubert, and, as such, their standards should not be used to admit otherwise inadmissible studies. Furthermore, this Note encourages courts to go back to Daubert’s roots when determining whether agency animal studies should be admitted in the future.