In traditional tort cases, by contrast, e.g. car accidents, federal courts have been willing to admit most scientific evidence. DNA evidence has been consistently admitted, but psychiatric evidence has been viewed more skeptically. The underlying debate is still very much alive. It continues to turn on the comparative risks of false positives and false neg atives. This is not a Constitutional debate about the right to jury trial.
All rules of evidence exclude evidence from juries.
The judge's role is to make sure only reliable, probative evidence is presented. Nor is this a broad debate about freedom of speech or of scientific inquiry. Individual scientists can still say what they want or study what they like. They are limited only in what they can say before juries in civil and criminal trials. Free speech and scientific progress will not be stifled by enforcing serious standards for science in this limited forum.