March 4, 2009 by Crime Lab Report

A historic report titled “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States – A Path Forward” was released on February 18, 2009 by a special committee convened by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in Washington, D.C. to examine the forensic sciences and identify needs that must be satisfied in order to maximize their value and reliability.
 
Although the report made several recommendations, its underlying theme was the need for a national commitment to support the forensic sciences and build a more impressive body of research.    
 
Disappointingly, the public briefing that was held to announce the report had yet to conclude when the Los Angeles Times released a distorted and somewhat myopic assessment of the recommendations reported by the NAS committee.  Other newspapers followed suit as they painted a picture of a chaotic and discombobulated forensic science community seemingly mired in its own incompetence.
 
According to Los Angeles Times reporter Jason Felch, “For decades, forensic scientists have made sweeping claims in court about fingerprints, ballistics, handwriting, bite marks, shoe prints and blood spatters that lack empirical grounding and have never been verified by science.”
 
The Chicago Tribune ran a similar story on February 19th accompanied by a photograph of an exonerated prisoner named Robert Stinson who was convicted, in part, on bitemark evidence.  The Tribune boasted that the NAS report validated a series of articles it published in 2004, which the Tribune says identified “a number of forensic disciplines, including some used in police stations and courtrooms every day, [that] relied on flawed science, and their use contributed to the arrests and convictions of innocent people.”
 
We are certain that the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune have no idea what the NAS report really means, nor have they demonstrated the ability or willingness to decipher the many nuances that lie within it.
 
Crime Lab Report resisted the temptation to act quickly on the release of the report – opting to let the dust settle before digging deeply into its 255 pages of observations and recommendations.  To our surprise, what we discovered was a report that was considerably sympathetic to the plight of many forensic practitioners and their laboratories. 
 
The report, however, is not the first attempt to characterize and quantify the needs of the forensic science community.  In February 1999 a report was issued to the United States Congress by the National Institute of Justice which called for many of the same improvements identified by the National Academies – including a national Forensic Science Commission “to identify issues and needs of particular disciplines and provide national leadership to improve the practice of forensic science.”  Forensic science leaders were heavily involved in the study and have remained consistent in their message ever since:
 
We need resources to meet skyrocketing demand and rising expectations.  In the absence of those resources, please be fair and reasonable in what you expect of us.
 
The following two excerpts from the recent NAS report captured this sentiment quite accurately:
 
“For decades, the forensic science disciplines have produced valuable evidence that has contributed to the successful prosecution and conviction of criminals as well as to the exoneration of innocent people. Over the last two decades, advances in some forensic science disciplines, especially the use of DNA technology, have demonstrated that some areas of forensic science have great additional potential to help law enforcement identify criminals. Many crimes that may have gone unsolved are now being solved because forensic science is helping to identify the perpetrators.”
 
“There are scores of talented and dedicated people in the forensic science community, and the work that they perform is vitally important. They are often strapped in their work, however, for lack of adequate resources, sound policies, and national support. It is clear that change and advancements, both systemic and scientific, are needed in a number of forensic science disciplines—to ensure the reliability of the disciplines, establish enforceable standards, and promote best practices and their consistent application.”
 
We would politely argue that there are thousands of talented and dedicated people in the forensic science community, but the intent of the language is not misunderstood.
 
Reasonable people can disagree over the report’s recommendations and the representation on the committee that prepared it.  It is simply impossible for a report of this magnitude to please all of its readers all of the time.  Everyone’s view will be shaped by his or her own professional experiences and expectations.  Crime Lab Report is no exception.
 
But as we suggested earlier, the true spirit and practicality of the report lies in a few critical nuances that have yet to be captured in the predominant media coverage.  Therefore, Crime Lab Report will address these points for the benefit of journalists, scientists, lawyers, researchers, laypersons, and others who have a sincere desire to understand the National Academy of Sciences’ assessment of the forensic sciences. 
 
First, the most profound and promising aspect of the NAS report was its refusal to affirmatively deny the reliability of many forensic disciplines that have come under the fire of critics around the country.  The report makes no claim that disciplines such as firearm identification, toolmark identification, latent print identification, and forensic odontology (bitemark comparisons), to name a few, are invalid or incapable of producing consistently accurate results.
 
In fact, the report openly acknowledges that these disciplines may very well have significant scientific underpinnings.  In its discussion of latent fingerprints for example, the report explains that historically, “friction ridge analysis has served as a valuable tool, both to identify the guilty and to exclude the innocent.  Because of the amount of detail available in friction ridges, it seems plausible that a careful comparison of two impressions can accurately discern whether or not they had a common source.”
 
Similarly, in its assessment of firearm and toolmark identification (commonly referred to as ballistics), the committee agreed that “class characteristics are helpful in narrowing the pool of tools that may have left a distinctive mark. Individual patterns from manufacture or from wear might, in some cases, be distinctive enough to suggest one particular source, but additional studies should be performed to make the process of individualization more precise and repeatable.”
 
In other words, the committee remains undecided on issues pertaining to scientific validity because many forensic sciences have yet to present an underlying body of empirical data and literature that conform to today’s standards for conducting and documenting scientific research.
 
John Collins, Crime Lab Report’s Chief Managing Editor and the director of an internationally accredited forensic science laboratory in the Midwest, testified before the NAS committee in June 2007.  He argues that the report is a reason for optimism if it is kept in perspective.
 
“The National Academies aren’t saying that the engines driving forensic science are pushing in the wrong direction.  They are simply recommending more horsepower.  Much of the research they call for will further add to the validity of the most commonly practiced disciplines.”
 
Collins’ point is underscored by the fact that the NAS report did not reprimand the forensic science community for any shortfalls that may exist in the accessibility or completeness of the available research.  Instead, the committee seemed to understand and appreciate the unique history of the forensic sciences and how that history shaped research that was performed many decades ago.
 
Like so many other legitimate fields of study, most forensic sciences did not grow up in the kind of academic environment that we know today.  By necessity, they were incubated under the protective watch of the law enforcement community and the armed forces mainly because there were no incentives for other institutions or professions to nurture them on a large scale. 
 
Police departments and army bases are certainly not bastions of scientific research and have never claimed to be.  But it was the police and military that needed the capacity to scientifically detect crime, identify perpetrators, and exonerate the innocent.  So they did what they had to do to make it work – often with the help of noteworthy scientific pioneers at universities around the world. 

In 2005, a major study was published by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors which addressed the growing need for research in the forensic sciences.  According the report, “work in the forensic sciences does not receive the type or level of funding that basic research receives. Few forensic laboratories (20%) have resources dedicated to research and, historically, research is performed at universities.  Practitioner partnerships are needed for these research programs.”
 
Any portrayal of the forensic science community as acting in defiance of modern scientific expectations or intentionally avoiding rigorous scrutiny is false and irresponsible.    
 
The real story, unfortunately, may not help the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune sell newspapers.  Be we hope citizens are afforded the opportunity to understand these issues before any serious public policy changes are enacted.
 
All reputable and qualified forensic practitioners derive most of their confidence from training and experience.  And in most instances, a large body of accumulated knowledge exists to support their work.  As a result, they can provide a service that allows triers of fact to make more informed choices about the guilt or innocence of defendants in our justice system. 
 
Even though research exists in many embattled forensic disciplines, much of it lacks the completeness and statistical underwriting that are necessary for objective researchers to independently evaluate these sciences and arrive at a consensus on their validity.  Whether right or wrong, universities and other independent research bodies of similar standing are expected to put their stamp of approval on critical scientific practices – usually by undertaking large studies that can establish valid quantitative expressions about the reliability and uncertainty of certain methods. 
 
Future studies will likely begin from scratch so that all commonly practiced forensic sciences will eventually have the necessary scientific foundations.
 
Crime Lab Report will be watching to make sure that the input and expertise of reputable and active forensic practitioners weigh heavily on the research that occurs from this point forward.  To isolate these men and women from the efforts to make lasting progress in the forensic sciences would entirely defy the NAS report’s intent to inspire collaboration and communication among a variety of scientific professionals. 
 
Ballistics and fingerprint studies performed by law professors and economists will be the first clue that something has gone terribly wrong.
 
This leads us into another critical point raised by the NAS committee regarding the capacity of our justice system and its officers to objectively elicit scientific facts. 
 
For years forensic scientists have gathered around dessert tables at professional conferences and voiced their displeasure about the procedural constraints that seem to inhibit scientists from freely discussing the implications of their scientific results during a trial or other legal proceeding.  Most expert witnesses, at some point in their careers, experience the frustration of being admonished by a judge or lawyer for volunteering information that exceeds the scope of the question asked. 
 
In very clear language, the NAS committee gave credence to these frustrations when they opined that the “adversarial process relating to the admission and exclusion of scientific evidence is not suited to the task of finding ‘scientific truth.’” 
 
We agree wholeheartedly with this assessment but we also believe it applies to adversarial clashes occurring outside the courtroom.  Many dangerous misperceptions about forensic science have been propagated by lawyers and professors who are intent on bringing forensic science to its knees by whatever means possible.  This has created an equally unsuitable environment for finding scientific truth. 
 
For this reason, we wish the NAS committee would have cautioned its readers to be wary of the potential dangers and distractions presented by ideologues who hope to influence the funding and staffing of the many research projects that will take place in the coming years.        
 
Forensic science leaders must focus on the establishment of new partnerships with honest and collaborative researchers in academia – and there are many of them.  As these partnerships take hold, misguided activists will lose relevance and credibility.
 
Dr. Roger Kahn, former president of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors and a practicing DNA expert in Texas noted that there is a precedent for this ability of science to transcend ideology.  According to Kahn, “this clearly happened with DNA after the second report by the National Research Council on DNA testing.  It led to important research and publications that resolved a variety of statistical questions in a rigorous manner.  In doing so it strengthened the underpinnings of forensic DNA.” 
 
Until that time, a rather uncomplimentary image of DNA was being painted by many of the same individuals who now hold DNA up as proof that other forensic disciplines are substandard.
 
This transcendence will likely begin as forensic science leaders identify and partner with collaborators and researchers in the academic community.  Eventually, critical commentators having a limited perspective on the realities of the forensic sciences will disqualify themselves from serious consideration and be less able to hinder the scientific progress that can be made in the coming years.
 
Just before the release of the NAS report, the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations (CFSO) took the first steps towards this objective by inviting a variety of stakeholders to a roundtable discussion in Washington, D.C.  According to the CFSO, invitees included defense attorneys, prosecutors, police officials, judges, and civil rights advocates.  No other gesture could have more appropriately reflected the goodwill and optimism that exists in the forensic science community to do right by our justice system.  No other act of leadership could have been more effective.

When given the choice to float a few superficial sound bites to a reporter or engage in a meaningful discussion, forensic science leaders will probably start looking for a comfortable conference room.   That’s exactly what the CFSO did.  

Continued on the right

Subscribe to our free monthly report!
If you've received this report from a friend or colleague, you can subscribe now.  Information about our subscribers is kept private.

News Coverage of NAS Report

Alternet.org
Study calls for overhaul of crime labs

Reporter Ben Protess offers one of the most fair and objective summaries of the National Academies report in this article that came across Crime Lab Report’s news wire on February 18, 2009.

New York Times

Study calls for oversight of forensics in crime labs
“Among its many criticisms, the study counted a backlog of 359,000 requests for forensic analysis in 2005, a 24 percent increase in delays since 2002. A survey of crime laboratories found 80 percent of them to be understaffed.  A new federal agency is needed to regulate these laboratories, standardize forensic techniques and pay for research, according to the report, which was financed by Congress in 2005.”

Los Angeles Times
Report questions science and crime lab evidence
“Sweeping claims made in courtrooms about fingerprints, ballistics, bite marks and other forensic evidence often have little or no basis in science, according to a landmark report released Wednesday by the nation's leading science body.”

Discover Magazine

Verdict on forensic science: it’s quite bad

This summary catalogues what a few news outlets and blogs have said about the recent National Academy of Sciences Report. 

National
Prof testifies on future of forensics

“Professor of Medical Science Constantine Gatsonis co-chaired a committee appointed by the National Academy of Sciences in 2007, and presented a report, entitled "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward," to Congress last month.”

Reason Magazine

National Academies slams bitemark analysis
“The NAS study says here that despite the fact that bite mark evidence has been introduced in hundreds, likely thousands of cases since Daubert, bite mark analysis, while possibly useful for investigative purposes, may not be steeped enough in science for consideration in a courtroom. Indeed, the report next chides the courts for not even performing a proper Daubert evaluation in too many bite mark cases.”

Chicago Tribune
Forensic techniques suspect in NAS report
“In a 2004 series ‘Forensics Under the Microscope,’ the Tribune found that a number of forensic disciplines, including some used in police stations and courtrooms every day, relied on flawed science, and their use contributed to the arrests and convictions of innocent people.”

Fox News
Shock waves coming for police and prosecutors
“The problem with criminal forensics is the government monopoly on courtroom science in criminal trials. In too many states, forensic evidence is sent only to state-owned or state-operated crime labs. There’s no competition, no peer review, and in some cases, crime lab workers either report to or can be pressured by prosecutors when test results don’t confirm preexisting theories about how a crime may have occurred.”

 Saks & Faigman Respond

Crime Lab Report published an editorial in January strongly criticizing professors Michael Saks and David Faigman for what we believe is a systemic misunderstanding of the forensic identification sciences.  We are publishing their response as a courtesy to our readers.  Please click the link to read the full response.