In a jury trial where specialist knowledge is involved - be it medical, forensic, or whatever - the jurors are not expected to be experts in these fields themselves. What is expected is that the jury hears each side of the case - prosecution and defence, and each expert witness is cross-examined.

Is this system perfect? No. But it's deemed the fairest way we've worked out so far.

In making sense of what has happened over the last year and a half, we are jurors in a fashion. There's a problem though: even now, many people have only heard one side of the story. In a legal trial, this would be grounds for calling a mistrial, and starting over.

It's become a cliché to "Follow the science." The question is, whose science? To accept something as true, solely because an expert said it on a major TV channel, is naïve. You only have to dig a little below the surface to see why.