Judges could make the expert witness status more respectable by having judges use criteria for recognition of experts that are tied to their capacity to evaluate evidence admissible in the case under the Daubert v. Merrell Dow interpretation. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court (1992-93 term) made clear that Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence gives the trial judge the task of ensuring that a purported scientific expert's testimony pertains to "scientific knowledge" tied to scientific methods and procedures and to a body of known facts or ideas accepted as true on good grounds and as relevant to the case. The Court reaffirmed Rule 702's requirement that an expert witness be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. Further, judges should experiment with hiring expert witnesses to work for the court rather than for the adversaries. Also, the consultant and witness roles should be separated. Scientists differ in their abilities to explain and argue. Consultants, including both parties' experts and court-appointed "masters," can be especially helpful in the pretrial stage. Scientists and physicians should be afforded the opportunity for training in legal procedures, courtroom techniques, and conflicts of interest. Those experienced in the work of an expert witness should engage in relevant data collection and publish research about the process and its results. 9 references