Consumers who file product liability or toxics lawsuits based on novel scientific evidence may be more likely now to make it to a jury trial, after a U.S. Supreme Court decision this week, says Edward J. Imwinkelried, UC Davis law professor and scientific testimony expert. In Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the court ruled judges must ensure scientific testimony is not only relevant, but reliable. In addition, admissibility of testimony depends on the soundness of the methodology, rather than on whether the expert's conclusion is popular or generally accepted. In the past, Imwinkelried says, plaintiffs in novel situations were almost certainly "dead in the water" against defendants who based cases on accepted scientific thinking. On the other hand, the ruling could make it more financially difficult for plaintiffs because "you need someone on the stand for a longer period of time to describe not just the conclusions but how you got there," and generally, defendants have more money and resources than plaintiffs.