Although petitioners had responded with the testimony of eight
other well-credentialed experts, who based their conclusion that
Bendectin can cause birth defects on animal studies, chemical
structure analyses, and the unpublished ``reanalysis'' of
previously published human statistical studies, the court
determined that this evidencedid not meet the applicable ``general
acceptance'' standard for the admission of expert testimony.  The
Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed, citing Frye v. United
States, 54 App. D. C. 46, 47, 293 F. 1013, 1014, for the rule that
expert opinion based on a scientific technique is inadmissible
unless the technique is ``generally accepted'' as reliable in the
relevant scientific community.
Held:  The Federal Rules of Evidence, not Frye, provide the
standard for admitting expert scientific testimony in a federal
trial.  Pp. 4-17.
   (a)  Frye's ``general acceptance'' test was superseded by the
Rules'adoption.  The Rules occupy the field, United States v.
Abel, 469 U. S. 45, 49, and, although the common law of evidence
may serve as an aid to their application, id., at 51-52,
respondent's assertion that they somehow assimilated Frye is
unconvincing. Nothing in the Rules as a whole or in the text and
drafting history of Rule 702, which specifically governs expert
testimony, gives any indication that ``general acceptance'' is a
necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific
evidence.  Moreover, such a rigid standard would be at odds with
the Rules' liberal thrust and their general approach of relaxing
the traditional barriers to ``opinion'' testimony.  Pp. 4-8.
---
---------------