Methods designed to obviate wrongful conviction in the pre-scientific era are ill-adapted to the assessment of complex scientific evidence in courts of the late 20th century. I argue that scientists and lawyers should collaborate to ensure that science is used to better advantage than the old methods allow. They should act to equip juries to assess expert evidence. All that a non-technical jury requires for assessing an expert's argument is a list of the standard procedures of the scientist's profession, put in the same logical sequence as the expert followed in his testing and reasoning. Respected bodies such as the Australian Academy of Science might assist the courts to obtain professional standards on which the courts could rely in assessing forensic science evidence.