Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 28, 2026

A11-positive β-amyloid Oligomer Preparation and Assessment Using Dot Blotting Analysis
Published on: May 22, 2018
The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done?
1Department of Neurosurgery, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA.
Abstract:
Flawed expert scientific testimony has compromised truth finding in American litigation, including in medical malpractice and in product liability cases. The Federal Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court in Daubert and other cases have established standards for testimony that include reliability and relevance, and established judges as gatekeepers. However, because of lack of understanding of scientific issues, judges have problems with this role, and juries have difficulties with scientific evidence. Professionals and the judiciary have made some advances, but a better system involving the court's use of neutral experts and a mechanism to hold experts accountable for improprieties is needed.
Related Concept Videos
Decision Making: Traditional Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
Errors In Hypothesis Tests
Bonferroni Test
The means of different samples are first paired in all possible combinations.
The null hypothesis of the...
Statically Indeterminate Problem Solving
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5% chance...
Trial and Error and Algorithm

