Also, scientists must stand before a jury all their professional lives. It's called peer review. Legal structures change slowly while research lurches forward, creating facts, powerful technologies, and ethical dilemmas before there are laws to address them. Our approaches are truly different. We regard each other's territory with skepticism.
Scientists are uneasy in the legal arena, finding the rules for evidence selective.
They also shrink at hashing out their scientific differences in the courtroom, preferring their own, safer, venues such as meetings and journals. The discomfort goes both ways. The judge, while still a student, dropped out of a pre-med curriculum because he couldn't hack organic chemistry. A brilliant legal career then led to a federal judgeship. Ironically, at that point, he came face to face again with molecular biology, this time in the guise of DNA evidence.