In principle, experts are under an obligation to the court, they must not 
take sides or express conclusions which go beyond their proper scope of expertise. All very good in principle but in reality…
Expert witness work is hugely lucrative; such is its influence in creating a winning narrative. There are examples of industrial scale bias in the reports written by experts e.g. whiplash, audiometry. If they were not biased, they would not be asked to write any more reports; they would lose out on great wealth. That this happens is not the fault of the expert but of the system which they work within, partly because it is so expensive to insist in the common law principles that should be applied. However, it inevitably calls into question the independence of their view.
The expert for the winning side will be associated with the winning arguments. Commission for future expert work will be based on an expectation that the winning view will be repeated with the same vigour. But if this is true he cannot remain an expert for long. Sooner or later, the orthodoxies he espouses will be challenged by new evidence. Is he really free to learn from new evidence? If not he cannot be an expert.
The Radar project must retain the freedom to criticise the evidence presented in court by experts. It must not find itself in court and has always refused such invitations. It does however suggest cross examination points to help the court to understand the limitations of a given argument.