This proposal first appeared in the 1976 interim report of the Task Force of the Presidential Advisory Group on Anticipated Advances in Science and Technology. As envisioned by the task force, the court would use a panel of impartial, competent scientists from disciplines adjacent to, but not involved with, the dispute as judges. These judges would hear direct testimony from scientific experts on both sides of the issue and would be allowed to cross-examine each other. After hearing all witnesses, the judges would issue a report summarizing their findings and recommendations. This document would have no legal standing, but would provide input to the decisionmakers convening the court. Although a science court has yet to be convened, an attempt was made in 1977 by Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich to apply a science court resolution of the controversy surrounding a high-voltage, direct-current transmission line crossing West Central Minnesota. The failure to convene the court shows the practical problems in instituting such a tribunal. Based on a literature review and the Minnesota case study, this article concludes that the institutionalized science court would be of value when controversy exists within the scientific community itself, but only with narrow regulatory concerns. Once the controversy has extended to the public arena, however, the science court is no longer an effective tool for conflict resolution. 47 references