Yarnall, Megan A.2010-05-192010-05-1920090196-2043https://hdl.handle.net/1794/1037330 p.Part I of this Comment examines the causes and challenges associated with conflicting scientific experts. Part II identifies and distinguishes common sources of bias that may further complicate the evaluation of dueling expert testimony. Possible solutions to these problems are explored in Part III, leading into an explanation of Australia’s hot tub method and an evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses in Part IV. Part V discusses factors to consider in determining whether or not particular testimony lends itself to the hot tub procedure, while Part VI focuses specifically on ways the procedure could further ease the evaluation of dueling scientific expert testimony. Part VII identifies both the similarities and differences between the American and Australian court systems, as well as the differences that materially affect the applicability of the hot tub in the United States. Part VIII addresses some of these difficulties and suggests modifications to adapt the hot tub method to the American courts.en-USExpert witnessesConcurrent expert testimonyHot tubbingCourts -- AustraliaCourts -- United StatesEvidence, ExpertArticle