¶1(concurring).
¶2As the majority readily acknowledges, it was drawn into a Daubert analysis because of the way the parties argued this case in the trial court and on appeal. I concur but write separately to emphasize that the majority’s thorough and scholarly application of Dau-bert should not be misinterpreted as an endorsement of its framework for analysis in future cases. Our own common-law interpretation of Iowa rule of evidence 702 — historically unencumbered by reliance on the federal Frye test — has served us well and will continue to do so.