Courts need to become more sophisticated about the scientific issues in toxic torts along the lines suggested in Chapter 7 to better ensure that verdicts comport with the science needed in a case, that there are fair admissibility reviews, and that there is the possibility of justice for injured parties. However, even a sensitive review of scientific evidence within existing federal law may fall short in bringing the science of our technological society into the law to guide social decisions. It also may not be sufficient to ensure matters have been “set right” as corrective justice requires for citizens wrongfully harmed by others. Further analysis suggests that the Daubert trilogy has probably had a number of counterproductive, although perhaps unintended, consequences on this point. There are three structural issues that raise concerns: (1) Admissibility changes wrought by Daubert, whether conducted poorly or well, almost certainly decrease citizens' access to the legal system. In turn, this puts justice for injured parties at risk and reduces further tort law deterrence of harmful conduct or products. (2) In some respects, Daubert increases the acceptability of legal decisions that utilize scientific evidence. In others, it threatens their acceptability, creates counterproductive tendencies concerning the science, or has other untoward consequences. (3) Beyond these two more specific problems, Daubert admissibility screening, ignorance about the universe of substances, too little product testing and monitoring, and the causal requirement of torts together undermine protections of public health and the environment where toxic substances are concerned.