Instead, Rule 702 mandates that the district court screen the admission of novel scientific evidence, and it must conclude, pursuant to Rule 104(a), that the proposed testimony is scientific knowledge, derived from the scientific method, that will assist the trier of fact, i.e., is relevant. Id. at 589-93, 113 S.Ct. 2786. The district court’s screening “entails a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.” Id. at 592-93, 113 S.Ct. 2786. While the Daub (8th Cir.2001) (Rule 702 “clearly is one of admissibility rather than exclusion” (internal quotation omitted)); Wood v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 112 F.3d 306, 309 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Further, district courts are admonished not
holding that exclusion of experts opinion is proper only if it is so fundamentally unsupported that it can offer no assistance to the jury internal quotation omitted holding that it is not the courts role to decide whether an experts opinion is correct holding that due process is violated if evidence of prior bad acts goes only to character and there are no permissible inferences the jury may draw from it internal quotation marks omitted holding that it is not holding even though experts are permitted to give an opinion they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others