0ther major problems are ineffective or uniformative presentations at trial, role conflict on the part of experts, limitations faced by courts in obtaining and dealing with information needed to resolve scientific and technological matters, and the costs of experts' services. Study data came from a literature review and from interviews with 74 judges, lawyers, and experts from diverse fields who were involved in a wide variety of cases in scattered geographic locations. Possible solutions to the major problems are the creation of specialized judges and the use of judges who are knowledgeable in the scientific and technological aspects of a case, the creation of science courts in which scientist-judges would make the decisions, changes in the rules of evidence so that courts could use the more flexible procedures found in administrative proceedings to handle particularly complex subject matter, and the creation of panels of scientific experts who would be available to assist judges in deciding about scientific issues. Less extreme reforms would be to use science masters to conduct pretrial hearings, to appoint advisory juries composed of scientists or science advisors, to have court-appointed experts, to appoint 'blue ribbon' juries of particularly knowledgeable people, and to use more flexible trial procedures to enhance the trial's function as a forum for educating the fact finder. Thirty-seven reference notes are provided.