Legal activist: The opportunities for presenting flawed science in the courtroom are numerous, and, over time, such flawed testimony in trials can influence procedural requirements for entire professions. For example, so-called expert witnesses in medical malpractice suits have testified that the use of electronic fetal monitors would have prevented certain delivery-room complications, even though their views were not corroborated by medical science. Yet, as a result of the decisions based on such testimony, the use of electronic fetal monitors during delivery has become the professional norm. Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion drawn in the legal activist's argument? ['Unreliable scientific testimony given in trials can have marked effects on the procedures used by the experts in certain fields.', 'Scientists who are engaged in good science should not allow so-called experts to give deceptive courtroom testimony.', 'The scientific testimony at many trials is not as reliable as juries are led to believe.', 'Medical personnel should not be allowed to give legal testimony on topics in which they are not experts.']