The Science Behind Forensic Science
It is not unreasonable for courts to demand that nonacademic-based procedures be shown to be reliable by scientists independent of law enforcement laboratories, and Congress must provide adequate resources and a mandate to undertake the research needed to demonstrate the validity and reliability of these techniques.
Abstract
Donald Kennedy's Editorial “Forensic science: oxymoron?” (5 Dec., p. [1625][1]) raises a number of troubling questions about forensic science. They are especially troubling for those of us who work in crime laboratories, law enforcement agencies, medical examiner's offices, and other parts of the criminal justice system that deal with evidence and scientific analysis. Forensic science professionals heartily support research into the scientific underpinnings of forensic science. Daubert and subsequent cases have changed the way courts review knowledge-based evidence. It is therefore not unreasonable for courts to demand that nonacademic-based procedures be shown to be reliable by scientists independent of law enforcement laboratories. The challenge is to ensure that the methods and techniques that protect the innocent and incriminate the guilty are reliable and actually work. The Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations (CFSO) represents over 11,000 individuals who work in forensic science worldwide. These organizations and their members endorse the notion that their work must be grounded in scientific principles. The CFSO endorses research into the underpinnings of forensic science techniques. However, money is needed to fund that research. Congress must provide the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) with adequate resources and a mandate to undertake the research needed to demonstrate the validity and reliability of these techniques. Other funding agencies that have not traditionally funded forensic research, such as the National Science Foundation, should also be engaged. Research conducted by impartial scientists working in research institutes, coupled with input from the forensics community, is needed. Will research quiet the naysayers to forensic science? Probably not, but carefully directed research aimed at some of the key problems will promote fairness in our justice system and lead to ever more powerful and reliable technology. Now for the hard part: How can the scientific/academic community, in cooperation with the forensics community, put these issues on the radar screen of those who can provide appropriate funding? [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.302.5651.1625