Lunch & Learn: The Fundamental Problem of Expert Testimony

Join PULSE for lunch and engage with Vanderbilt School of Law Professor Ed Cheng, who will explore how laypersons should make decisions about expert topics.

The question of how to address expert testimony and handle expert topics has long challenged the legal system. With an eye to the upcoming twenty-fifth anniversary of Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, in which the Supreme Court tasked judges to be the gatekeepers in scientific evidence cases, Prof. Cheng will go beyond the usual questions about the case.  He'll explore a more fundamental but arguably neglected issue: how should a layperson make decisions about expert topics?  The answer may surprise you, and its shift in perspective may affect how you think about not only Daubert, but also everyday tasks like making a medical decision or combating fake news.  


We'll leave ample time for Q & A with Prof. Cheng, and lunch will be provided.


Professor Edward Cheng is a Professor of Law and 2017–2018 FedEx Research Professor at Vanderbilt School of Law.  His research focuses on scientific and expert evidence, and the interaction between law and statistics. Prof. Cheng is a coauthor of Modern Scientific Evidence, a five-volume treatise that is updated annually, and he is the host of Excited Utterance, a podcast focusing on scholarship in evidence and proof.