There is a significant difference between memorizing concepts and definitions to be regurgitated in a deposition or trial without understanding AND understanding fundamental concepts with the ability to reliably apply "science" to a specific set of circumstances to reach reliable determinations and opinions.

While such prerequisite knowledge should be a requirement for qualified practitioners, the testing of such reliable knowledge ("science") falls a bit short at the moment, in my opinion. "Good experts" can find a means to circumvent such a testing of this knowledge by memorization of answers to expected questioning.

I would propose that practitioners be tested for their ability to apply such fundamental and reliable knowledge to a specific set of circumstances or facts. If my understanding is correct, this is similar to the process of becoming "board certified" in the medical field. Could be an oral exam or a written exam, or both.

The same is done in the field of engineering. The EIT (Engineers in Training) exam is all about testing for fundamental knowledge. You can take the exam while still in engineering school. In fact, this is promoted. The PE (Professional Engineer) exam is taken once you demonstrated sufficient experience and the test is more a kin to actual engineering problems you might experience as a practicing engineer.

This framework could be the basis for similar testing in the field of fire investigation.

Douglas J. Carpenter, MScFPE, CFEI, PE, FSFPE
Vice President & Principal Engineer
Combustion Science & Engineering, Inc.
8940 Old Annapolis Road, Suite L
Columbia, MD 21045
(410) 884-3266
(410) 884-3267 (fax)
www.csefire.com