在科技飞速发展、社会分工细化带来的诉讼专业化、复杂化背景下，我国民事诉讼专家辅助人制度发展至今，在涉及专业问题的案件中对实现当事人诉权、弥补法官专业知识不足等方面发挥了极大作用，有力地保障了诉讼的公正和科学。但与此同时，民事诉讼专家辅助人制度立法的框架性规定导致司法实践缺乏细致的规范可以遵循，本文通过对案例进行分析的方式找出制度运行中暴露出的问题，总结出现存制度缺陷并在制度设计上提出进一步完善的构想。

从概念上而言，专家辅助人受当事人委托并经法院允许，在诉讼中辅助当事人对鉴定意见或专业性问题进行解释、发表意见或进行质证，所以应当将其视为独立的诉讼参与人并与鉴定人、证人等其他诉讼参与人相区别。在此基础之上，结合具体数据与案例进行分析可以发现，司法实践中专家辅助人在各地法院准入资格的审查标准存在差异，专家辅助人的诉讼地位也没有在实践中达成统一。庭审过程中，专家辅助人的意见提出程序、质证程序缺乏具体的规定，法官无明确的意见采纳规则可遵循，这些因素直接影响着法官心证的形成和最终的判决结果。将以上在司法实践案例中发现的问题进一步总结，反馈在立法上可以看出，我国民事诉讼专家辅助人制度目前面临着准入资格审查标准未明、诉讼地位模糊、参诉程序规定不细致、意见采信规则不清、权责分配不明等制度困境。针对以上困境，首先应赋予专家辅助人独立的诉讼地位，平衡其自身立场的“倾向性”与“中立性”。同时在诉讼准入阶段用细化标准的方式进行把控，明确专家辅助人资格审查条件的规定，辅之以专家辅助人信息化的管理方式，缩小各地司法实践差异。在诉讼进行阶段完善专家辅助人参诉的质证程序规则和意见采信规则，详细规定专家辅助人应当享有的知情权、查阅权、对鉴定意见的质询权等独有权利和对应的义务，也包括专家辅助人应承担的法律责任和信用责任，从以上角度有的放矢地在立法层面作出相对应的构想和设计。

综上所述，民事专家辅助人制度的诞生和发展都立足于我国司法实践的土壤，因此需要在不断的分析和经验总结中逐步完善民事诉讼专家辅助人的制度设计，使之愈来愈贴合我国社会发展的现实要求。

In the rapid development of science and technology, specialization of social division of labor refinement of litigation, complicated background, our country civil litigation auxiliary expert system development until now, in cases involving major problems for realizing the parties litigation right, remedy the judge professional knowledge has played a great role, effectively guarantee the impartiality of the litigation and science. However, at the same time, the framework of civil litigation expert auxiliary person system legislation leads to the lack of detailed norms that can be followed in judicial practice. This paper finds out the problems exposed in the system operation through empirical analysis of cases, summarizes the existing system defects, and proposes further improvement ideas in system design.

From a conceptual point of view, the expert auxiliary person is entrusted by the party and allowed by the court to assist the party to explain, express opinions or cross-examine the expert opinions or professional issues in the lawsuit, so it should be regarded as an independent participant in the lawsuit and different from other participants such as expert witnesses and witnesses. On this basis, the empirical analysis combined with specific data and cases shows that in judicial practice, there are differences in the examination standards of the access qualification of expert assistants in courts in different regions, and the litigation status of expert assistants has not been unified in practice. In the process of court hearing, there is a lack of specific provisions in the procedure of putting forward the opinions of the auxiliary experts and the cross-examination procedure, and the judge has no clear rules of adopting opinions to follow, which directly affects the formation of the judge's evidence and the final judgment result. By further summarizing the problems found in the judicial practice cases above, the feedback can be seen from the legislation that China's civil litigation expert auxiliary person system is currently faced with such institutional difficulties as unclear access qualification examination standard, unclear litigation status, incareful provisions on the participation procedure, unclear rules on the acceptance of opinions, and unclear rights and responsibilities distribution. In view of the above dilemma, the expert assistant should be given an independent litigation status to balance the "tendentiousness" and "neutrality" of his own position. At the same time, in the litigation access stage, the way of detailed standards to control, to clarify the provisions of the qualification examination conditions of expert auxiliary personnel, supplemented by the expert auxiliary personnel information management, narrowing the differences in judicial practice. To improve phase in litigation on auxiliary ginseng v. cross-examination procedure rules and expert rules of admissibility, detailed regulations expert auxiliary people should enjoy the right to know, to refer to, the right to inquiry of expert opinion and other exclusive right and corresponding obligation, including expert auxiliary person shall bear the legal responsibility and credit responsibility, from the perspective of the above target at the legislative level to make the corresponding ideas and design.

To sum up, the birth and development of the civil expert-assisted person system are based on the soil of judicial practice in China, so it is necessary to gradually improve the system design of the civil litigation expert-assisted person in the continuous empirical analysis and experience summary, so as to make it more and more in line with the realistic requirements of China's social development.