The future of forensics.

Those with an interest in forensics have been waiting for the much touted National Research Council report on the state of “forensic science” in the U.S. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has this to say:

Finding an inconsistent system rife with “serious deficiencies,” lacking practitioner and laboratory independence, standards, oversight, and certification, the NRC called today for major reforms, including the establishment of a wholly independent federal agency, the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS), to address the manifold problems with the current science and system.

The report explicitly recognizes that there’s a world of difference between forensic science as an investigatory tool or method and proof of innocence or guilt in court. One example of this type of forensic work cited the report is forensic odontology. “[F]orensic odontology might not be sufficiently grounded in science to be admissible under Daubert, but this discipline might be able to reliably exclude a suspect, thereby enabling law enforcement to focus its efforts on other suspects,” according to the report.

With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, “no forensic method has been rigorously shown to be able to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source,” according to the NRC.

The whole report is available at The National Academies. The news release states:

A congressionally mandated report from the National Research Council finds serious deficiencies in the nation’s forensic science system and calls for major reforms and new research.

See, ‘Badly Fragmented’ Forensic Science System Needs Overhaul, 18 February 2009.

A statement of the National District Attorney’s Association can be found at their website: NDAA Reaction to National Academy of Science Study.