A Perspective on Errors, Bias, and Interpretation in the Forensic Sciences and Direction for Continuing Advancement *

Abstract:  The forensic sciences are under review more so than ever before. Such review is necessary and healthy and should be a continuous process. It identifies areas for improvement in quality practices and services. The issues surrounding error, i.e., measurement error, human error, contextual bias, and confirmatory bias, and interpretation are discussed. Infrastructure is already in place to support reliability. However, more definition and clarity of terms and interpretation would facilitate communication and understanding. Material improvement across the disciplines should be sought through national programs in education and training, focused on science, the scientific method, statistics, and ethics. To provide direction for advancing the forensic sciences a list of recommendations ranging from further documentation to new research and validation to education and to accreditation is provided for consideration. The list is a starting point for discussion that could foster further thought and input in developing an overarching strategic plan for enhancing the forensic sciences.

[1]  Diana Harrison,et al.  Handwriting Examination: Meeting the Challenges of Science and the Law , 2009 .

[2]  James Robertson.  Forensic Examination of Hair , 1999 .

[3]  C. Aitken,et al.  Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists: Aitken/Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists , 2005 .

[4]  Robert B. Stacey.  Report on the Erroneous Fingerprint Individualization in the Madrid Train Bombing Case , 2005 .

[5]  Samuel Lindsey,et al.  The Random Match Probability (RMP) in DNA Evidence: Irrelevant and Prejudicial? , 1995 .

[6]  Stephen G. Bunch,et al.  Is a Match Really a Match? A Primer on the Procedures and Validity of Firearm and Toolmark Identification , 2009 .

[7]  Ranajit Chakraborty,et al.  Interpreting DNA evidence , 2000 .

[8]  Simon Ford,et al.  Sequential Unmasking: A Means of Minimizing Observer Effects in Forensic DNA Interpretation , 2008, Journal of forensic sciences.

[9]  L. Ross,et al.  Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. , 1981 .

[10]  Joseph L Peterson,et al.  The feasibility of external blind DNA proficiency testing. I. Background and findings. , 2003, Journal of forensic sciences.

[11]  J. Koehler,et al.  The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science , 2005, Science.

[12]  Bruce Budowle,et al.  Correlation of microscopic and mitochondrial DNA hair comparisons. , 2002, Journal of forensic sciences.

[13]  M J Saks,et al.  Context effects in forensic science: a review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States. , 2003, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[14]  Joseph L. Peterson.  Teaching Ethics in a Forensic Science Curriculum , 1988 .

[15]  B Budowle,et al.  Validation of STR typing by capillary electrophoresis. , 2001, Journal of forensic sciences.

[16]  Franco Taroni,et al.  Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists , 2004 .

[17]  B Budowle,et al.  Validation of short tandem repeats (STRs) for forensic usage: performance testing of fluorescent multiplex STR systems and analysis of authentic and simulated forensic samples. , 2001, Journal of forensic sciences.

[18]  Claude Roux,et al.  Review of : Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists, 2nd Ed. , 2005 .

[19]  梁 啓超,et al.  庸言 = The justice , 2022 .

[20]  David Charlton,et al.  Why Experts Make Errors , 2006 .

[21]  Bruce Budowle,et al.  Questions About Forensic Science , 2006, Science.

[22]  Hesham M. Fahmy.  Introduction to Statistics for Forensic Scientists , 2007, Technometrics.

[23]  Jay A. Siegel,et al.  The Appropriate Educational Background for Entry Level Forensic Scientists: A Survey of Practitioners , 1988 .

[24]  Pam Carter,et al.  Six Sigma , 2010, AAOHN journal : official journal of the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses.

[25]  James Robertson,et al.  Forensic and Microscopic Examination of Human Hair , 1999 .

[26]  Keith L. Monson,et al.  Source Attribution of a Forensic DNA Profile , 2000 .

[27]  Franco Taroni,et al.  How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. , 2003, Journal of forensic sciences.

[28]  JoAnn Buscaglia,et al.  Review of the Scientific Basis for Friction Ridge Comparisons as a Means of Identification: Committee Findings and Recommendations , 2006 .

[29]  W. Thompson.  Subjective interpretation, laboratory error and the value of forensic DNA evidence: Three case studies , 2005, Genetica.

[30]  Kenneth G Furton,et al.  Trends in forensic science education: expansion and increased accountability , 2003, Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry.

[31]  Maureen C. Bottrell.  Forensic Glass Comparison: Background Information Used in Data Interpretation , 2009 .

[32]  William J. Bodziak,et al.  Footwear Impression Evidence: Detection, Recovery and Examination , 1999 .

[33]  Mark R. Wilson,et al.  Forensics and mitochondrial DNA: applications, debates, and foundations. , 2003, Annual review of genomics and human genetics.

[34]  D. D. Hoolihan,et al.  Technical analysis of ISO/DIS 17025-general requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories , 1999, 1999 International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility (IEEE Cat. No.99EX147).

[35]  I. Dror,et al.  Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. , 2006, Forensic science international.

[36]  Colin Aitken,et al.  Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science , 2006 .

[37]  Cary T. Oien.  Forensic Hair Comparison: Background Information for Interpretation , 2009 .