first and third Daubert factors: empirical validity and as-certainability of error rate. In other words, according to Simmons, research on rape necessarily is biased in favor of believing purported victims; to develop indi-cia of rape-victim behavior, researchers must assume, as a starting premise, the veracity of their subjects, even though there is no way to verify the percentage of subjects actually raped. Therefore, Simmons asserts: due to this inherent limitation, no empirically valid or reliable forensic diagnostic techniques can be developed, only therapeutic tools. Obviously, these are inherent limitations for such research. Nevertheless, expert testimony drawing on it is not thereby proscribed by Daubert. See Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co., 130 F.3d 1287, 1297 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 953, 118 S.Ct. 2370,
holding future dangerousness expert testimony to be admissible recognizing inherent methodological limitations in all socialscience research particularly sexualharassment research nevertheless holding such expert testimony admissible holding expert testimony properly excluded under daubert where testimony was prepared solely for litigation lacked any supporting research and there was no showing of support for witness conclusions in peerreview articles or any outside research recognizing such limitations in dicta holding that the testimony of an expert  along with some kind of analytical research or event studyis required to show loss causation