The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done?

Flawed expert scientific testimony has compromised truth finding in America n litigation, including in medical malpractice and in product liability cas es. The Federal Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court in Daubert and othe r cases have established standards for testimony that include reliability a nd relevance, and established judges as gatekeepers. However, because of la ck of understanding of scientific issues, judges have problems with this ro le, and juries have difficulties with scientific evidence. Professionals an d the judiciary have made some advances, but a better system involving the court's use of neutral experts and a mechanism to hold experts accountable for improprieties is needed.