The ambition to be scientific: human expert performance and objectivity.

Forensic Science has a long history of trying to establish and strengthen itself as an accepted science in the courtroom. Recent criticisms of forensic science have greatly intensified these efforts. The criticisms have emerged from highly visible erroneous identifications and research demonstrating the subjectivity and biasability of forensic judgments, cumulating in a number of public and scientific inquires that have been quite critical of forensic science. The ambition to be scientific and objective is admirable and should be encouraged. Developing strict and detailed scientific methods and protocols, blinding examiners to potentially biassing irrelevant contextual information, statistical tools andmeasurement instrumentation that provide objective and accurate quantification, as well as best practices in collecting and analysing evidence – all based on data – are important and warranted steps in further establishing and strengthening forensic work as a science. Science is amatter of fact, not opinion. Forensic science is comprised from a variety of domains, some of which are already quite objective and scientific, some are currently not but hopefully will be in the future, and other domains – by their very nature – may never be a matter for objective scientific methodology. Ideally all domains (not only across the forensic domains, but also medicine and others) will be purely scientific and objective. However, this is not realistic within our current knowledge and understandings. Whether it is an achievable goal for the (far) future or an idealized unattainable utopia, we should strive to increase objectivity and the scientific foundation and practices in the forensic sciences. Of course, it is not a dichotomy of either being a domain that is totally objective or one that is purely amatter of opinion. It is a continuum, where domains are more or less objective. Wemust consider the implications andmeaning that many forensic domains are (currently) not at the very end of the continuum of being objective and purely scientific. It seems that the drive and ambition to be a science has been so strong that it has caused (or will cause) to undervalue and underappreciate anything less than ‘scientific facts’, and make conclusions that are a matter of opinion seem unworthy. Let us not underestimate and forget the value of subjective experienced-based expert opinion [1]. It can be accurate, valuable and make important contribution. All that is required is that forensic examiners present the limits of their conclusions in terms of subjective judgments and the extent to which they are not purely scientific. It is hard not to overstate the strength of the evidence and the power of your domain when you are involved in the case and are working within an adversarial system. Nevertheless, forensic examiners must not get ‘sucked into’ the culture of the adversarial system, they must rise above it and remember their role as forensic scientists. It is not an easy task toweigh apiece of forensic evidence per se,when you are part of the investigative team, when you are brought in to help ‘build a case against’, when you take pride in helping to solve a case,