The danger is especially severe when the strength of a strong item of evidence leads a jury to disregard the sloppiness with which it was gained. Similarly, the weakness of weak evidence could easily be ignored if the highly competent manner in which it was obtained attracts too much attention. The possibility of contamination has to be considered because science is complex and juries can be easily confused. Even if they postpone asking for professional assistance in assessing science now, courts eventually will be forced to seek it by exploding technology. The jury can then return to the job they were called to do.
Science is a very broad collection of disciplines.
Scientific evidence calls for a new, more sophisticated, approach in the courtroom. For example, there are four different ways to test scientific evidence in the courtroom because the arguments fall naturally into four different categories. They stem from fundamentally different kinds of scientific investigation and each cries out for its own proper treatment. The differences in the arguments are real logical differences. Unless they are handled differently, courts will fail to apply the scientific safeguards or miss seeing the signs of quality needed to determine first admissibility and then weight of scientific evidence in a systematic and professionally appropriate way.