The plaintiffs included Jason Daubert and his parents, William and Joyce Daubert. Jason was born with serious limb defects, and the plaintiffs alleged that these defects were caused by his mother's use of an antinausea drug, Bendectin, manufactured by the defendant. The plaintiffs relied in part on testimony by epidemiologists to demonstrate correlations between exposure to certain substances and increased risks of illness. In a motion for summary judgment, the defendant cited findings from a literature review that concluded there is no generally accepted belief in scientific circles that Bendectin causes limb deformities. In granting the defendant's motion, the district judge relied on Federal Rule of Evidence 703. This rule states, the facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence." Upon reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court reversed, with the majority deducing restrictions on the admission of scientific evidence from Rule 702 rather than Rule 703. Rule 702 states that "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of facts to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." This article argues that "facts or data" in Rule 703 should be construed narrowly and that questions related to the quality and quantity of scientific data must be assigned to Rule 702. 157 footnotes