<P> According to a 2002 RAND study, post Daubert, the percentage of expert testimony by scientists that was excluded from the courtroom significantly rose . This rise likely contributed to a doubling in successful motions for summary judgment in which 90% were against plaintiffs . Beyond this study, there is little empirical evidence of the impact of Daubert . However, some critics argue that Daubert has disrupted the balance between plaintiffs and defendants, "The exclusion of expert testimony affects plaintiffs far more than defendants because plaintiffs may then not be able to meet their required burden of proof . Furthermore, there is little point in plaintiffs going to the expense of Daubert motions to exclude defendant's experts until they know if their case will proceed . So if more experts are now being excluded, then Daubert has undoubtedly shifted the balance between plaintiffs and defendants and made it more difficult for plaintiffs to litigate successfully ." Similarly, Daubert hearings can be subject to various abuses by attorneys attempting to bolster a weak case . These tactics can range from simply attempting to delay the case to driving up the costs of the litigation forcing settlement . </P> <P> A different pattern has emerged in criminal cases . In criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of proof and uses a host of forensic science methods as evidence to prove their case . But, Daubert motions are rarely made by criminal defendants and when they do, they lose a majority of the challenges . Some critics of the use of unreliable science in court argue that Daubert has had beneficial effects in civil litigation, but fails to address the underlying pathologies of the forensic science system that leads to dubious verdicts in criminal cases . </P> <P> Some commentators believe that Daubert caused judges to become--in the phrase used in former Chief Justice William Rehnquist's dissent in Daubert--amateur scientists, many lacking the scientific literacy to effectively fulfill their role as gatekeeper of scientific evidence . Although "science for judges" forums have emerged in the wake of Daubert in order to educate judges in a variety of scientific fields, many are still skeptical about the usefulness of the Daubert standard in discerning valid science . The responsibility to assess scientific relevance has shifted from highly trained expert witnesses to judges deficient in science education . The "Daubert" ruling furthermore admits the possible introduction of non-peer reviewed data and conclusions . This increasingly shifts the burden of scientific judgement onto judges who have not had an education which would enable them to properly evaluate such data . </P> <P> Pursuant to Rule 104 (a), in Daubert the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that the following factors be considered: </P>

Where does daubert put the responsibility of the admissibility of evidence