J.D. The rules governing judicial admission of scientific evidence have changed considerably over the years. Since about 1300, the general judicial rule has been that witnesses may testify only about what they perceive with their five senses. When an area is outside common knowledge, a jury may hear testimony from a witness qualified by training, knowledge, skill, or experience in a particular subject. The court had never heard of this test and decreed that a scientific principle introduced in court must be generally accepted by the scientific community. The rule evolved further in 1993, when the Supreme Court concluded in the Daubert case that the judge must determine the validity of scientific expert opinion and ascertain its reliability and usefulness to the jury.
Litigation is more difficult for plaintiffs.
Judges will sometimes require education in scientific process for complex cases, although this is expensive. The conclusion is that valid science is a good protector against unsafe products. Valid science enables both scientists and members of the judicial system to deliver better justice. The guideline program was at first viewed negatively by the Medical Group, which questioned the local autonomy of physicians versus central leadership of the Health Plan. Providers would be accountable for achieving these goals.