David L. Faigman's book indicts the law for what he calls its "misuse of science". He says that the motivations involved with science in the courtroom are the same as those that motivated Dr. Faust: knowledge and power. However, he states, the real problem concerns how scientific knowledge has gotten into the courtroom for "efficiency, not variety". 
The problem with this, he posits, is that accuracy is smudged for the perfection of the "facts" that the lawyer may insert into his or her argument, or, reality is changed for its imagined persuasiveness. The obvious difficulty here is that it becomes acceptable to introduce false evidence, which dilutes the credibility and strength of the justice system, mentions as the cornerstone of an effective society. Another issue is that there are ways in which bringing false forensic evidence to a jury, which is not versed in forensic science, can lead to a verdict that may imprison someone who is not guilty.

     The issue, Faigman argues, is not whether scientific evidence should be brought to the courtroom, but whether the justice system will choose to bring actual science to the law, or continue to practice a sort of "legal alchemy", where forensic evidence is molded into the persuasiveness of the lawyer's argument at the expense of accuracy.