methodology for establishing causation, then that places a burden on the expert to explain his choice of methodologies.” Meridia, 328 F.Supp.2d at 800 (citing Conde v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 804 F.Supp. 972, 1025-26 (S.D.Ohio 1992)). Plaintiffs argue that it would be medically and scientifically unethical to attempt a control-group epidemiological experiment of the effects of OSCS in human beings. To do so would require administering OSCS to patients and exposing them to the possibility of injury. Nevertheless, plaintiffs must still demonstrate that the reasoning or methodology on which their experts base their opinions is scientifically valid and properly applied to the facts in issue. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 144-45, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997) (<HOLDING>). To this end, when relying on animal, in vivo
holding that animal studies can be a proper foundation for an experts opinion but that those opinions must be sufficiently supported by the animal studies on which they purport to rely holding that an rld manufacturer was unlikely to succeed on its challenge to the fdas reliance on animal studies to establish the bioequivalency of a proposed generic because courts are bound to show deference to the agencys factfinding in this area of its technical expertise holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding an opinion relying in part on extrapolation from highdose animal studies to lowdose human disease scenarios where there was no attempt to explain how the animal subjects and humans have similar physiological makeup and rate of chemical absorption holding that a reliable differential diagnosis alone may provide a valid foundation for a causation opinion even when no epidemiological studies peerreviewed published studies animal studies or laboratory data are offered in support of the opinion holding that alj properly rejected opinions based on invalid objective studies