Court acknowledged that many factors would be instructive to the district court, it focused on four non-exclusive factors: (1) whether the scientific technique can be or has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and/or publication; (3) the known rate of error for the technique or theory and the applicable standards for operation; and (4) whether the technique is generally accepted. Id. at 593-94, 113 S.Ct. 2786. Daubert and Rule 702 thus greatly liberalized what had been the strict Frye standards for admission of expert scientific testimony. Id. at 588, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (highlighting the “liberal thrust” of the Federal Rules and their attempt to relax the previous roadblocks to expert testimony (quotation omitted)); see , 1100 (8th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Lauzon v. Senco Prods., Inc., 270 F.3d 681,
holding that expert testimony should not be admitted as to a matter that is obviously within the common knowledge of jurors because such testimony almost by definition can be of no assistance holding any error in admitting testimony of expert witness was harmless because it was cumulative of same testimony given by six other expert witnesses who testified at trial holding that expert testimony should be admitted if it advances the trier of facts understanding to any degree quotation omitted holding that an expert may base his or her opinions and inferences on facts andor data perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing internal quotation marks omitted holding that the presence in the courtroom of an expert witness who does not testify to the facts of the case but rather gives his opinion based upon the testimony of others hardly seems suspect and will in most cases be beneficial for he will be more likely to base his expert opinion on a more accurate understanding of the testimony as it evolves before the jury