It continues to turn on the comparative risks of false positives and false negatives. 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. The real debate is to what extent scientists will be required to validate their claims with other scientists before peddling them in court. Requiring scientists to write down their claims and expose them to scientific peers for possible rejection, before offering them in court, is not suppression. It is a vindication of the scientific process.