ForensicsDOJ, NIST team up to shore up forensic science, but skeptics question effort
Five years ago, a report on the state of forensic science by the National Academy of Sciences decried the lack of sound science in the analysis of evidence in criminal cases across the country. It spurred a flurry of outrage and promises, but no immediate action. Now, renewed efforts are underway, with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) teaming up to create a National Commission on Forensic Science.
Five years ago, a report on the state of forensic science by the National Academy of Sciences decried the lack of sound science in the analysis of evidence in criminal cases across the country. It spurred a flurry of outrage and promises, but no immediate action. Now, renewed efforts are underway, according to an article in Chemical & Engineering News, the weekly news magazine of the American Chemical Society.
C&EN editors Andrea Widener and Carmen Drahl note that the 2009 report served as a critical wake-up call to the public, defense attorneys, and policymakers. Even the most common and long-standing forensic techniques such as fingerprinting were deemed questionable. As scandals in forensic labs within the past five years make clear, however, most efforts to institute major change fizzled out — until last year. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) teamed up to create a National Commission on Forensic Science. The new entity is tasked with going back to the 2009 report and figuring out how to turn its recommendations into action. Additionally, NIST is starting an organization to create uniform standards across the field.
An ACS release reports that the article notes, however, that some observers have their doubts about whether this round of efforts will yield any concrete changes. Among the challenges is a lack of money. The DOJ and NIST are tackling the problem out of their existing budgets, and Congress does not seem inclined to support the issue with new funding. Also, the new commission can make recommendations, but it is up to the U.S. attorney general as to whether to make federal labs follow them. The attorney general, however, cannot force state labs to do the same. On the other hand, working in favor of change is openness. The commission’s recommendations will be public and available for use by defense attorneys, accreditors and legislators, which could be enough to force standards higher.
— Read more in Carmen Drahl and Andrea Widener, “Forcing Change In Forensic Science,” Chemical & Engineering News 92, no. 19 (12 May 2014): 10-15
