In Bunting v. Jamieson, 984 P.2d 467, 471 (Wyo. 1999), the Court cited Daubert's (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc) non-exclusive list of four criteria to be used to guide the trial court's assessment of reliability: whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; its known or potential rate of error along with the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; the degree of acceptance within the relevant scientific community. Bunting v. Jamieson, 984 P.2d at 472. These criteria, however, cannot be applied in every case: "the initial step in reviewing the admissibility of expert testimony is the determination whether the Daubert factors apply to the specific testimony at issue. Where they are reasonable measures of reliability, these factors should be considered." Id. at 475. The Court also emphasized that methodology "should be distinguished from the conclusion of the expert. Thus, a trial judge need not and should not determine the scientific validity of the conclusions offered by an expert witness. Rather, to decide admissibility, the trial judge should only consider the soundness of the general scientific principles or reasoning on which the expert relies and the propriety of the methodology applying those principles to the specific facts of the case." Id. at 472-73.