The scientific and legal communities have widely divergent norms of professional conduct, but proper adjudication of technologically complex disputes in the American legal system depends upon each community maintaining its respective norms. When scientists adopt the norms of law, efficient dispute resolution is impeded. Several mechanisms have been proposed to discourage such shifts in professional ethics. They include the science court, in which prominent scientists would serve as the triers of fact, so as to eliminate the problems of a scientifically naive judiciary and produce scientifically sound decisions; consensus conferences, which could provide expert recommendations on scientific questions; the use of court-appointed scientific experts; and the use of scientific referees to preside over the preparation of a report by two experts of differing viewpoints. The most viable of the options is apparently the use of court- appointed experts; many courts already have the authority to appoint such experts, so no major changes in the structure of the legal system are required. What is required, however, is assistance from scientific professional societies in the form of a roster of certified or recommended experts. 68 footnotes