L.J. Deftos1 argues that scientific expert witnessing done by independent panels of experts appointed by judges is preferable to adversarial presentations done by experts for the defense and the plaintiff. Adversarial presentations by experts in cases involving controversial scientific evidence, as for example in the quantitative evaluation of risk, ensure the presentation of the maximum scientifically sound case for the plaintiff and equally the maximum rebuttal by the defendant.
When the issue is the prediction of future effects (damages), the rigorous comparison of the pros and cons by both the judge and the jury is necessary to arrive at an honest decision. For many reasons, ... independent panels of experts appointed by judges may not fulfill the very rigorous requirements for searching out every jot and title of evidence as to cause and effect. Such panels must necessarily have to compromise conflicting theory and evidence, what would be their purpose; ...
