Sarah Chu
This entry was written and submitted by Sarah Chu, Forensic Policy Advocate at the Innocence Project:
On March 28, 2012, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on “The Science and Standards of Forensics.” This Committee of Congress has jurisdiction over the science agencies of Congress – the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our hope is that these science agencies will have a new or more significant role in the future of forensic science. An articulation of their roles will further demonstrate to the American public that forensic science should be grounded as a scientific endeavor. Dr. Eric Lander (Innocence Project Board Member, President and Founding Director of the Broad Institute of Harvard & MIT, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology), Dr. Patrick Gallagher (Director of NIST), and Dr. Subra Suresh (Director of NSF) were the invited panelists.
In his opening statement, Senator Rockefeller stated, “I don’t often get the chance to say that a Commerce Committee hearing is about truth and justice. But that’s exactly what this hearing is about today. It’s about using more science in our criminal justice system. And it’s about creating standards that judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and juries all can trust.” He called attention to the need to create a culture of science because “Too often, their conclusions are subjective and lack scientific validation and standards. Without properly analyzed evidence, it’s harder for law enforcement to apprehend and prosecute criminals. And it’s more likely that our system will wrongfully convict innocent people.” Senator Rockefeller stated that research and standards are needed in forensic science and “to be credible, this work needs to be performed by scientific experts outside of the law enforcement culture.” The Senator announced that he hopes to introduce legislation in April that will focus on the best way to apply the federal government’s scientific knowledge and resources to strengthening the future of forensic science.
Dr. Lander’s remarks described how forensic DNA, today’s gold science for forensic science, needed to undergo a major validation process prior to its reliable application to forensic use. Although the law enforcement community had serious concerns about inviting independent scientists to set standards for the use of forensic DNA, they learned that the involvement of these scientists made DNA a stronger tool for police and prosecutors. He suggested that the answer lies in drawing on two cultures – the criminal justice community and the independent scientific communities. Dr. Lander proposed that forensic science standards can be achieved with research funded by NSF, standards and best practices developed by NIST, and allowing DOJ to play a central role in identifying the research priorities in forensic science and promoting the widespread adoption of good standards. However, with regard to the concept of DOJ having scientific responsibilities, Dr. Lander responded, “It’s tasking it with the wrong mission to ask it to be the independent scientific body that sets those standards.” (see 69:43 in video).
Dr. Gallagher described NIST’s role in the forensic sciences to assist in the measurement of uncertainty and to apply its measurement science to the development of standards for forensic evidence. Through this work, NIST research can help forensic scientists develop an understanding of accuracy and uncertainty, as well as a quantifiable expression of the quality of the measurements made. The work that NIST undertakes can help
“establish a more solid scientific basis for comparing samples and interpreting the types of evidence mentioned earlier. A more scientific basis for comparison will give the forensic science and law enforcement community a better understanding of how well those interpretations can be trusted.” In order to achieve these goals, NIST will rely on the ability to convene and engage forensic scientists and scientists (see 68:49 in video).
Dr. Suresh indicated that NSF has supported forensic science in the past. NSF funded workshops such as “Cognitive Bias and Forensic Science” at Northwestern University in September 2010 and another workshop on “Nanoscale Science and Technology for Forensics” at the University of Connecticut in August 2011. NSF is supporting basic research projects with computer scientists at Michigan State University who are investigating modeling and computational issues in fingerprint analysis and computer scientists at the State University of New York at Buffalo working on computational handwriting analysis. NSF is committed to supporting the basic sciences that will form the foundation for forensic applications.
You will find the testimony of the panelists as well as Senator Rockefeller’s opening statement attached to this email as well as the link to the webcast of the hearing here.
Wrongful Convictions Blog 
Sarah,
I’m really heartened by the moves toward grounding forensics in real science. It’s long, long overdue. MOST of forensics is based upon faulty inductive reasoning. It’s the problem of, “I’ve seen 100 roses and they’re all red; therefore, all roses must be red.” Even a cursory investigation of the statistical validity of forensics will reveal that it’s current most valid use is to EXCLUDE a suspect.
My “bottom line” for forensics is to ask the question, “Show me the data from which I can compute a (statistically valid) probability of occurrence.” When we get to the point that we ask that question, and they can actually produce the data, I’ll know we’ve arrived. There is no forensic discipline today (with the exception of DNA) that can do that, and that includes fingerprints.
It’s going to be a long, hard fight. Just about everyone in forensics today has their lives and careers invested in the old junk science. It took 10 years for NFPA921 to become “generally” accepted, and there are still pockets of resistance. Prosecutors and the forensics community have been pushing back with all their might against the NAS report.
This quote from Nobel physicist Max Planck:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
I’m afraid this is sadly true. So we MUST keep up the good fight, because every time we can get the courts to consider, and act on, the real science, we are not only helping a wrongly accused/convicted person, but we are also educating that new generation who will embrace an act upon the realities and truths of true science.
Phil Locke