MANY FORENSIC METHODS HAVE NEVER BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY VALIDATED, SCIENTISTS NOTE IN EDITORIAL
Many of the “forensic science” methods commonly used in criminal cases and portrayed in popular police TV dramas have never been scientifically validated and may lead to unjust verdicts, according to an editorial in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The authors were the six independent scientists who served on the National Commission for Forensic Science (NCFS), a panel set up in 2013 by the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The NCFS was terminated early last year when the DOJ did not renewed its charter.
The scientists wrote their editorial as an appeal to the scientific community to help maintain the momentum in putting forensic science on a firmer scientific basis. The co-authors include colleagues from West Virginia University, Cornell University, the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, Brown University and the University of Arizona.
“We wanted to alert people that this is a continuing and a major issue: that many of the forensic techniques used today to put people in jail have no scientific backing,” says senior author Arturo Casadevall, MD, Bloomberg Distinguished Professor and the Alfred & Jill Sommer Professor and Chair of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Casadevall and colleagues argue in their essay that the problems with forensic science are rooted in the discipline’s traditional close association with prosecutors and law enforcement. “Almost all publicly funded [forensic] laboratories, whether federal, state, or local, are associated with law enforcement. At the very least, this creates a potential conflict-of-interest,” they note.
Traditional forensic methods aimed at linking suspects to patterns found at the crime scene—fingerprints, bite-marks, footprints, tire-marks—were developed by law-enforcement laboratories and matured largely outside of mainstream scientific culture. Once these methods became admissible in criminal cases they continued to be used in court by the principle of judicial precedent. Yet while fingerprint analysis recently has been reformed into a more quantified, objective, empirically based method, most other traditional pattern-matching methods continue to be used despite insufficient understanding of their accuracy and reliability.
“The forensic experts might claim, for example, that the fibers isolated from a body ‘match’ the fibers in a rug that was in the back of the suspect’s truck, but generally they won’t be able to say what the error rate in their conclusion is” Casadevall says. “In other words, they haven’t properly characterized the uncertainties involved in concluding that it is a match.”
A major catalyst for a re-think of forensic methods was DNA analysis, which entered widespread use in forensics in the 1990s and had an unprecedentedly high accuracy and reliability. DNA analysis overturned many convictions that had been based on traditional, less precise methods, and forced the recognition that these traditional methods were overdue for scientific scrutiny.
At the behest of Congress, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convened a panel to study the problem, and in 2009 the NAS panel issued a report that was sharply critical of contemporary forensic science. The authors concluded that “with the exception of nuclear DNA analysis … no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source.”
The NAS report also recommended the establishment of a research organization that would be dedicated to reforming forensic science and bringing it into mainstream scientific culture. The report urged that this entity be independent of the Department of Justice (DOJ), which understandably has little institutional interest in questioning older methods, since that could lead to the overturning of old verdicts.
In the end, though, DOJ prevailed. The NCFS was established to increase communication among academic scientists, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and the forensic science community, but it was placed under the joint administration of the DOJ and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Following the 2016 presidential election, the winds shifted and DOJ declined to renew the commission.
“It’s a shame—we had been making a lot of progress,” Casadevall says. “Commissioners were realizing that in addressing these questions they might be able to improve their methods and the justice system.”
Casadevall sees little chance that the NCFS will be resurrected by the current administration, but he and his colleagues hope that by drawing attention to the problem, they can inspire the scientific and forensic communities to keep pushing for reforms, for example, mandatory empirical testing of all methods that are currently admissible in court.
“We’re hoping to keep the issue alive,” he says, “and we can see that a lot of otherwise educated and well-informed people still don’t understand the extent of the problem.”
The Latest on: Forensic methods
via Google News
The Latest on: Forensic methods
- Forensics Careers in the US – High Demand for Forensic Structural Engineers in the US.on November 27, 2020 at 7:22 am
A career in forensic structural engineer involves exploring the failings of buildings and structures to analyse how methods can be improved in the future to avoid property damage and personal injury.
- Chris Pearman: Forensic Science South Australia chief retireson November 26, 2020 at 7:00 pm
Squinting through the lens of his microscope, fledgling forensic botanist Chris Pearman had an inkling what the dried substance he was looking at might be. It was a type of algae. A relatively rare ...
- Forensics expert calls for Nigeria to fully adopt biometrics in criminal investigationson November 26, 2020 at 12:50 pm
Nigerian police should consider the full integration of forensic science — which often involves the use of biometrics — in the way cases are investigated and prosecuted in the ...
- The life and times of a forensic linguiston November 25, 2020 at 7:07 pm
Ironically, a big problem for forensic linguists (and linguistics in general) relates to language. It comes down to how we use the word “linguist”. Some people think this refers to a person who speaks ...
- Global DNA Forensic Market 2020 Key Regions, Major Manufacturers Performance, Value Chain and Sales Channels Analysis 2025on November 25, 2020 at 6:25 pm
Global DNA Forensic Market 2020 by Company, Regions, Type and Application, Forecast to 2025 reveals the overview ...
- Forensic linguists can make or break a court case. So who are they and what do they do?on November 25, 2020 at 11:02 am
For decades, forensic linguists have helped crack cases involving false author attribution, masked voices, false confessions in criminal cases and copyright disputes.
- Global Cloud Forensic Market 2020 (COVID-19 UPDATE) Future Challenges, Growth Statistics and Forecast to 2026on November 23, 2020 at 5:21 am
Global Cloud Forensic Market 2020 by Company, Regions, Type and Application, Forecast to 2026 is the latest market report rolled out by MarketsandResearch.biz, one of the world’s leading market ...
- Investigation without the application of forensic science, how far can you go?on November 21, 2020 at 3:04 am
If forensic science was applied, their guilt or innocence would have been easier to determine. Using procedures such as fingerprint and DNA analysis which are accurate and unique methods of individual ...
- Forensics Experts Used Social Media to Reconstruct Exact Cause of the Tragic Beirut Explosionon November 20, 2020 at 10:13 am
Forensic experts were able to use the considerable number of videos shared on social media to reconstruct the exact cause of the tragic explosion that took over 200 lives.
via Bing News