Deep Thoughts About Forensic Science

In April 2018, the Seton Hall Law Review published a symposium [scholarship.shu.edu] celebrating the career of Dr. Michael Risinger, one of the leaders of the movement to improve forensic science, and a dear friend. This symposium consists of papers written by ten legal scholars with expertise in the forensic sciences. Two of the papers reference fire investigation and some even mention my work over the last 25 years.

U C Irvine Criminology Professor Simon Cole’s paper “Who Will Regulate American Forensic Science?” discusses the response of the forensic science community to the 2009 National Academy of Sciences report “Strengthening Forensic Sciences in the United States: a Path Forward,” particularly the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Dr. Cole is critical of the response because it does not, in his opinion, contain sufficient numbers of non-practitioners in the standards development organizations.

As a practitioner who has tried to invite new stakeholders to the standards development table, I can only say to Dr. Cole that it is very difficult to persuade judges and lawyers to sit in a room with scientists and wordsmith standards documents. It is hard enough for the people who know what they are doing. Nonetheless, Cole’s call for a scientific culture in forensic science is worth heeding. He closes by asking “Has NIST’s OSAC assembled just the right mix of scientific firepower, practitioner buy-in, consumer pressure, government power, cultural change and persuasive force to be the entity that finally reforms forensic science? We cannot yet know, but the task is daunting.”

Professor Cole’s paper may be found at this link: [scholarship.shu.edu]

A second paper that also addresses fire investigation directly has the daunting title of “Toward a Sociology of Forensic Knowledge: A (Supplementary) Response to Cole.” This paper is written by Prof. David S Caudill of Villanova University School of Law, and takes a different approach to forensic science. Caudill argues that forensic science should be set up like medicine, where some of the scientists do the heavy research lifting, but don’t see patients, and others treat patients, but don’t conduct research. He refers to the researchers as “contributory experts.” The other kind of experts are what he calls “interactional experts.” These experts can immerse themselves in the science, but will not necessarily contribute to the development of the science. They have the technical skills, however, to run the tests and report the results that the judicial system needs. Caudill compares the medical model to the relationship between fire protection engineering (where the research happens) and fire investigation (where the investigating happens) to illustrate his point, and quotes an article that I wrote for Criminal Justice in 2012 where I stated,

“Certainly it is possible for individuals with no chemistry or physics beyond high school to apply themselves and learn the basic science and keep up with developments in the field.”

[www.americanbar.org]

Caudill concludes by stating, “The notion that a realistic goal may be to encourage forensic cultures in synch with science, rather than full-blown scientific cultures finds support in the effort to identify reliable experts irrespective of their level of formal education.” [scholarship.shu.edu]

As an undergraduate, the most valuable advice I received came from my organic chemistry professor who said, “Think about what you're doing!” Those who want to think about what they’re doing in forensic science in general or fire investigation in particular would be well served by taking the time to read the articles in this excellent symposium.