Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United

States: A Path Forward

Author: Committee on Identifying the Needs of the

Forensic Sciences Community, National

Research Council

Document No.: 228091

Date Received: August 2009

Award Number: 2006-DN-BX-0001

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally-

funded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.

Visit the

National Academies Press online, the authoritative source for all books

from the

National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering,

the

Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council:

• Download hundreds of free books in PDF

• Read thousands of books online for free

• Explore our innovative research tools – try the “Research Dashboard” now!

• Sign up to be notified when new books are published

• Purchase printed books and selected PDF files

Thank you for downloading this PDF. If you have comments, questions or

just want more information about the books published by the National

Academies Press, you may contact our customer service department toll-

free at 888-624-8373,

visit us online, or send an email to

[email protected].

This book plus thousands more are available at

http://www.nap.edu.

Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File are copyrighted by the National

Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited without

written permission of the National Academies Press.

Request reprint permission for this book.

ISBN: 0-309-13131-6, 352 pages, 6 x 9, (2009)

This PDF is available from the National Academies Press at:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

We ship printed books within 1 business day; personal PDFs are available immediately.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United

States: A Path Forward

Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic

Sciences Community, National Research Council

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community

Committee on Science, Technology, and Law

Policy and Global Affairs

Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

FORENSIC

A P A T H F O R WA R D

I N T H E U N I T E D S TAT E S

S T R E N G T H E N I N G

SCIENCE

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Govern-

ing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the

councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineer-

ing, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for

the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropri-

ate balance.

This study was supported by Contract No. 2006-DN-BX-0001 between the Na-

tional Academy of Sciences and the National Institute of Justice. Any opinions,

ﬁndings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of

the author(s) and do not necessarily reﬂect the views of the organizations or agencies

that provided support for the project.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Strengthening forensic science in the United States : a path forward : summary

/ Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community,

Committee on Science, Technology, and Law Policy and Global Affairs,

Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, Division on Engineering and

Physical Sciences.

p. cm.

Includes index.

ISBN-13: 978-0-309-13135-3 (hardcover)

ISBN-10: 0-309-13135-9 (hardcover)

ISBN-13: 978-0-309-13131-5 (pbk.)

ISBN-10: 0-309-13131-6 (pbk.)

1. Forensic sciences—United States. 2. Criminal investigation—United States.

3. Evidence, Criminal—United States. I. National Research Council (U.S.).

Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community. II.

National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Science, Technology, and Law

Policy and Global Affairs. III. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on

Applied and Theoretical Statistics.

HV8073.S7347 2009

363.250973—dc22

2009011443

Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press,

500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or

(202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.

edu.

Printed in the United States of America

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonproﬁt, self-perpetuating society

of distinguished scholars engaged in scientiﬁc and engineering research, dedicated to

the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.

Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Acad-

emy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientiﬁc

and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy

of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter

of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding en-

gineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members,

sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the

federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineer-

ing programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research,

and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is presi-

dent of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of

Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in

the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Insti-

tute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its

congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own

initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V.

Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sci-

ences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the

Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government.

Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the

Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy

of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the

government, the public, and the scientiﬁc and engineering communities. The Coun-

cil is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr.

Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of

the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

COMMITTEE ON IDENTIFYING THE NEEDS OF THE

FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMUNITY

HARRY T. EDWARDS, (Co-chair), Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit

CONSTANTINE GATSONIS, (Co-chair), Director, Center for Statistical

Sciences, Brown University

MARGARET A. BERGER, Suzanne J. and Norman Miles Professor of

Law, Brooklyn Law School

JOE S. CECIL, Project Director, Program on Scientiﬁc and Technical

Evidence, Federal Judicial Center

M. BONNER DENTON, Professor of Chemistry, University of Arizona

MARCELLA F. FIERRO, Medical Examiner of Virginia (ret.)

KAREN KAFADAR, Rudy Professor of Statistics and Physics, Indiana

University

PETE M. MARONE, Director, Virginia Department of Forensic Science

GEOFFREY S. MEARNS, Dean, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law,

Cleveland State University

RANDALL S. MURCH, Associate Director, Research Program

Development, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

CHANNING ROBERTSON, Ruth G. and William K. Bowes Professor,

Dean of Faculty and Academic Affairs, and Professor, Department of

Chemical Engineering, Stanford University

MARVIN E. SCHECHTER, Attorney

ROBERT SHALER, Director, Forensic Science Program, Professor,

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Department, Eberly College of

Science, The Pennsylvania State University

JAY A. SIEGEL, Professor, Forensic and Investigative Sciences Program,

Indiana University-Purdue University

SARGUR N. SRIHARI, SUNY Distinguished Professor, Department of

Computer Science and Engineering and Director, Center of Excellence

for Document Analysis and Recognition (CEDAR), University at

Buffalo, State University of New York

SHELDON M. WIEDERHORN (NAE), Senior NIST Fellow, National

Institute of Standards and Technology

ROSS E. ZUMWALT, Chief Medical Examiner, Ofﬁce of the Medical

Examiner of the State of New Mexico

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

Staff

ANNE-MARIE MAZZA, Study Director

SCOTT T. WEIDMAN, Director, Board on Mathematical Sciences and

Their Applications

JOHN SISLIN, Program Ofﬁcer, Board on Higher Education and

Workforce

DAVID PADGHAM, Program Ofﬁcer, Computer Science and

Telecommunications Board (until 5/08)

STEVEN KENDALL, Senior Program Associate

KATIE MAGEE, Senior Program Assistant (until 9/07)

KATHI E. HANNA, Consultant Writer

SARA D. MADDOX, Editor

ROBIN ACKERMAN, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology

Policy Fellow

GEMAYEL JEAN-PAUL, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology

Policy Fellow

JOHNALYN D. LYLES, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology

Policy Fellow

SANDRA OTTENSMANN, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology

Policy Fellow

DEIRDRE PARSONS, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy

Fellow

SARAH RYKER, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy

Fellow

SUNBIN SONG, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy

Fellow

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

vii

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND LAW

DONALD KENNEDY (NAS/IOM), (Co-chair), President Emeritus

and Bing Professor of Environmental Science Emeritus, Stanford

University; Emeritus Editor-in-Chief, Science

RICHARD A. MERRILL (IOM), (Co-chair), Daniel Caplin Professor of

Law Emeritus, University of Virginia Law School

FREDERICK R. ANDERSON, JR., Partner, McKenna, Long, & Aldridge

LLP

MARGARET A. BERGER, Suzanne J. and Norman Miles Professor of

Law, Brooklyn Law School

ARTHUR I. BIENENSTOCK, Special Assistant to the President for

SLAC and Federal Research Policy, Stanford University

BARBARA E. BIERER, Senior Vice President for Research, Brigham and

Women’s Hospital

ELIZABETH H. BLACKBURN (NAS/IOM), Morris Herzstein Professor

of Biology and Physiology, Department of Biochemistry and

Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco

JOE S. CECIL, Project Director, Program on Scientiﬁc and Technical

Evidence, Federal Judicial Center

RICHARD F. CELESTE, President, Colorado College

JOEL E. COHEN (NAS), Abby Rockefeller Mauzé Professor and Head,

Laboratory of Populations, The Rockefeller University and Columbia

University

KENNETH W. DAM, Max Pam Professor Emeritus of American and

Foreign Law and Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School

ROCHELLE COOPER DREYFUSS, Pauline Newman Professor of Law

and Director, Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy, New

York University School of Law

ALICE P. GAST (NAE), President, Lehigh University

LAWRENCE O. GOSTIN (IOM), Associate Dean for Research and

Academic Programs, Linda D. and Timothy J. O’Neill Professor

of Global Health Law, Georgetown University; Professor of Public

Health, The Johns Hopkins University

GARY W. HART, Wirth Chair Professor, School of Public Affairs,

University of Colorado, Denver

BENJAMIN W. HEINEMAN, JR., Senior Fellow, Harvard Law School

and Harvard Kennedy School of Government

DAVID BROCK HORNBY, Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Maine

DAVID KORN (IOM), Vice Provost for Research, Harvard University

RICHARD A. MESERVE (NAE), President, Carnegie Institution of

Washington

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

viii

DUNCAN T. MOORE (NAE), Professor, The Institute of Optics,

University of Rochester

ALAN B. MORRISON, Visiting Professor, Washington College of Law,

American University

HARRIET RABB, Vice President and General Counsel, Rockefeller

University

PAUL D. RHEINGOLD, Senior Partner, Rheingold, Valet, Rheingold,

Shkolnik & McCartney LLP

BARBARA ROTHSTEIN, Director, Federal Judicial Center

JONATHAN M. SAMET (IOM), Founding Director, Institute for

Global Health and Chairman, Department of Preventive Medicine,

University of Southern California

DAVID S. TATEL, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit

Staff

ANNE-MARIE MAZZA, Director

STEVEN KENDALL, Senior Program Associate

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

COMMITTEE ON APPLIED AND THEORETICAL STATISTICS

KAREN KAFADAR, (Chair), Rudy Professor of Statistics and Physics,

Indiana University

AMY BRAVERMAN, MISR Co-Investigator, Statistics and Data Analysis,MISR Co-Investigator, Statistics and Data Analysis,

Earth and Space Sciences Division, Jet Propulsion LaboratoryJet Propulsion Laboratory

CONSTANTINE GATSONIS, Director, Center for Statistical Sciences,

Brown University

MICHAEL GOODCHILD (NAS), Professor, Department of Geography,

University of California, Santa Barbara

KATHRYN B. LASKEY, Professor, Department of Systems Engineering

and Operations Research, George Mason University

MICHAEL LESK (NAE), Professor, Library and Information Sciences,Library and Information Sciences,

Rutgers University

THOMAS A. LOUIS, Professor, Department of Biostatistics, BloombergDepartment of Biostatistics, Bloomberg

School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University

MICHAEL A. NEWTON, Professor, Department of Biostatistics and

Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison

MICHAEL L. STEIN, Professor, Department of Statistics, The University

of Chicago

Staff

SCOTT WEIDMAN, Director

NEAL GLASSMAN, Senior Program Ofﬁcer

BARBARA WRIGHT, Administrative Assistant

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

Acknowledgments

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PRESENTERS

The committee gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the follow-

ing individuals who made thoughtful presentations before it:

Chris Asplen, Gordon Thomas Honeywell Government Affairs; Peter

D. Barnett, Forensic Science Associates; Richard E. Bisbing, McCrone

Associates, Inc., and Scientiﬁc Working Group on Materials Analysis

(SWGMAT); Joseph P. Bono, U.S. Secret Service; Michael R. Bromwich,

Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP; Bruce Budowle, Federal

Bureau of Investigation; James Burans, U.S. Department of Homeland

Security; Thomas Cantwell, U.S. Department of Defense; Larry Chelko,

U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory; John Collins, DuPage

County Sheriff’s Ofﬁce Crime Laboratory; Charles Cooke, Ofﬁce of the

Director of National Intelligence; Robin Cotton, Boston University School

of Medicine; Joseph A. DiZinno, Federal Bureau of Investigation; James

Downs, National Association of Medical Examiners and Consortium of

Forensic Science Organizations and Georgia Bureau of Investigation; Itiel

Dror, University of Southampton; Arthur Eisenberg, Forensic Quality Ser-

vices; Barry A. J. Fisher, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; Eric

Friedberg, Stroz Friedberg, LLC; Robert E. Gaensslen, University of Il-

linois at Chicago; Brandon L. Garrett, University of Virginia; Michael D.

Garris, National Institute of Standards and Technology; Ed German, U.S.

Army (ret.); Paul C. Giannelli, Case Western Reserve University School of

Law; Bruce A. Goldberger, American Academy of Forensic Sciences; Hank

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Greely, Stanford University; Barbara Guttman, National Institute of Stan-

dards and Technology; David W. Hagy, U.S. Department of Justice; Randy

Hanzlick, Fulton County Medical Examiner’s Center and Emory University

School of Medicine; Carol Henderson, National Clearinghouse for Science,

Technology and the Law and Stetson University; Matthew J. Hickman,

U.S. Department of Justice; Peter T. Higgins, The Higgins-Hermansen

Group; Max M. Houck, West Virginia University; Vici Inlow, U.S. Secret

Service; Jan L. Johnson, Illinois State Police; Jay Kadane, Carnegie Mellon

University; David Kaye, Arizona State University; Peter D. Komarinski,

Komarinski & Associates, LLC; Roger G. Koppl, Farleigh Dickinson Uni-

versity; Glenn Langenburg, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension;

Deborah Leben, U.S. Secret Service; John Lentini, Scientiﬁc Fire Analysis,

LLC; Alan I. Leshner, American Association for the Advancement of Sci-

ence; William MacCrehan, National Institute of Standards and Technology;

Bill Marbaker, American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors; Kenneth

F. Martin, Massachusetts State Police; Carole McCartney, University of

Leeds; Stephen B. Meagher, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Scien-

tiﬁc Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology

(SWGFAST); Jennifer Mnooken, University of California, Los Angeles

Law School; John E. Moalli, Exponent; John Morgan, U.S. Department of

Justice; Michael Murphy, Las Vegas Ofﬁce of the Coroner; Peter Neufeld,

The Innocence Project; John Onstwedder III, Illinois State Police; Garry

F. Peterson, Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Ofﬁce and National

Association of Medical Examiners; Joseph L. Peterson, California State

University, Los Angeles; Peter Pizzola, New York Police Department Crime

Laboratory; Joe Polski, Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations and

International Association for Identiﬁcation; Larry Quarino, Cedar Crest

College; Irma Rios, City of Houston Crime Lab; Michael Risinger, Seton

Hall Law School; Michael J. Saks, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law,

Arizona State University; Nelson A. Santos, Scientiﬁc Working Group for

the Analysis of Seized Drugs (SWGDRUG); David R. Senn, The University

of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio; Robert Stacey, American

Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, Laboratory Accreditation Board;

David Stoney, Stoney Forensic, Inc.; Peter Striupaitis, International Asso-

ciation for Identiﬁcation and Scientiﬁc Working Group for Firearms and

Toolmarks (SWGGUN); Rick Tontarski, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation

Laboratory; Richard W. Vorder Bruegge, Federal Bureau of Investigation;

Victor W. Weedn; and Tom Witt, West Virginia University.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for

their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with pro-

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii

cedures approved by the National Academies’ Report Review Committee.

The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical

comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as

sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards

for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review

comments and draft manuscript remain conﬁdential to protect the integrity

of the process.

We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this

report: R. Stephen Berry, University of Chicago; Christophe Champod,

Universite de Lausanne, Switzerland; William Chisum, Retired, National

Crime Investigation and Training; Joel Cohen, Rockefeller University; Peter

DeForest, John Jay College of Criminal Justice; Stephen Fienberg, Carnegie

Mellon University; Barry Fisher, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Depart-

ment; Mark Flomenbaum, Boston University; Ross Gardner, Gardner Fo-

rensic Consulting; Paul Giannelli, Case Western Reserve University; Randy

Hanzlick, Emory University; Keith Inman, Forensic Analytical Sciences,

Inc.; Dan Kahan, Yale Law School; Roger Kahn, Harris County Medical

Examiner’s Ofﬁce; Elizabeth Loftus, University of California, Irvine; C.

Owen Lovejoy, Kent State University; Kenneth Melson, George Washington

University; Michael Murphy, Ofﬁce of the Coroner/Medical Examiner, Las

Vegas, Nevada; Hyla Napadensky, Retired, Napadensky Energetics, Inc.;

Joseph Peterson, California State University, Los Angeles; William Press,

University of Texas, Austin; Jed Rakoff, U.S. District Court Southern Dis-

trict of New York; Carl Selavka, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Labora-

tory; David Stoney, Stoney Forensic, Inc.; and Charles Wellford, University

of Maryland.

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive

comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions

or recommendations, nor did they see the ﬁnal draft of the report before its

release. The review of this report was overseen by John Bailar, University

of Chicago, and Royce Murray, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Appointed by the National Academies, they were responsible for making

certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in

accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments

were carefully considered. Responsibility for the ﬁnal content of this report

rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

Contents

Preface xix

Summary 1

Introduction, 1

Findings and Recommendations, 14

1 Introduction 35

What Is Forensic Science?, 38

Pressures on the Forensic Science System, 39

Organization of This Report, 53

2 The Forensic Science Community and the Need for Integrated

Governance 55

Crime Scene Investigation, 56

Forensic Science Laboratories and Service Providers, 57

Case Backlogs, 61

NIJ’s Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program, 62

Forensic Services Beyond the Traditional Laboratory, 64

Federal Forensic Science Activities, 65

Research Funding, 71

Professional Associations, 75

Conclusions and Recommendation, 77

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

xvi CONTENTS

3 The Admission of Forensic Science Evidence in

Litigation Law and Science 85

Law and Science, 86

The Frye Standard and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of

Evidence, 88

The Daubert Decision and the Supreme Court’s Construction of

Rule 702, 90

The 2000 Amendment of Rule 702, 92

An Overview of Judicial Dispositions of Daubert-Type

Questions, 95

Some Examples of Judicial Dispositions of Questions Relating to

Forensic Science Evidence, 99

Conclusion, 110

4 The Principles of Science and Interpreting Scientiﬁc Data 111

Fundamental Principles of the Scientiﬁc Method, 112

Conclusion, 125

5 Descriptions of Some Forensic Science Disciplines 127

Biological Evidence, 128

Analysis of Controlled Substances, 134

Friction Ridge Analysis, 136

Other Pattern/Impression Evidence: Shoeprints and Tire Tracks, 145

Toolmark and Firearms Identiﬁcation, 150

Analysis of Hair Evidence, 156

Analysis of Fiber Evidence, 162

Questioned Document Examination, 164

Analysis of Paint and Coatings Evidence, 167

Analysis of Explosives Evidence and Fire Debris, 171

Forensic Odontology, 174

Bloodstain Pattern Analysis, 177

An Emerging Forensic Science Discipline: Digital and

Multimedia Analysis, 179

Conclusions, 183

6 Improving Methods, Practice, and Performance in

Forensic Science 183

Independence of Forensic Science Laboratories, 183

Uncertainties and Bias, 184

Reporting Results, 185

The Need for Research, 187

Conclusions and Recommendations, 188

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

CONTENTS xvii

7 Strengthening Oversight of Forensic Science Practice 193

Accreditation, 195

Standards and Guidelines for Quality Control, 201

Proﬁciency Testing, 206

Certiﬁcation, 208

Oversight as a Requirement of Paul Coverdell Forensic Science

Improvement Grants, 211

Codes of Ethics, 212

Conclusions and Recommendations, 213

8 Education and Training in Forensic Science 217

Status of Forensic Science Education, 218

Challenges and Opportunities to Improve Forensic

Science Education, 224

Research as a Component of Forensic Science Education

Programs, 230

Status of Training, 231

Education in the Legal System, 234

Conclusions and Recommendation, 237

9 Medical Examiner and Coroner Systems: Current and

Future Needs 241

Medical Examiners and Coroners (ME/C), 243

ME/C Jurisdiction, 244

ME/C Missions, 244

Variations in ME/C Systems, 245

Qualiﬁcations of Coroners and Medical Examiners, 247

ME/C Administration and Oversight, 249

ME/C Stafﬁng and Funding, 249

The Movement to Convert Coroner Systems to Medical Examiner

Systems, 251

Utilization of Best Practices, 252

Potential Scientiﬁc Advances That May Assist ME/Cs, 253

The Shortage of Medical Examiners and Forensic Pathologists, 256

Standards and Accreditation for Death Investigation Systems, 258

Quality Control and Quality Assurance, 259

Continuing Medical Education, 259

Homeland Security, 260

Forensic Pathology Research, 261

Common Methods of Sample and Data Collection, 263

Conclusions and Recommendation, 265

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

xviii CONTENTS

10 Automated Fingerprint Identiﬁcation Systems 269

Interoperability Challenges, 273

Conclusions and Recommendation, 276

11 Homeland Security and the Forensic Science Disciplines 279

Conclusion and Recommendation, 285

Appendixes

A Biographical Information of Committee and Staff 287

B Committee Meeting Agendas 303

Index 315

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

xix

Preface

Recognizing that signiﬁcant improvements are needed in forensic sci-

ence, Congress directed the National Academy of Sciences to undertake

the study that led to this report. There are scores of talented and dedicated

people in the forensic science community, and the work that they perform

is vitally important. They are often strapped in their work, however, for

lack of adequate resources, sound policies, and national support. It is clear

that change and advancements, both systemic and scientiﬁc, are needed in

a number of forensic science disciplines—to ensure the reliability of the

disciplines, establish enforceable standards, and promote best practices and

their consistent application.

In adopting this report, the aim of our committee is to chart an agenda

for progress in the forensic science community and its scientiﬁc disciplines.

Because the work of forensic science practitioners is so obviously wide-

reaching and important—affecting criminal investigation and prosecution,

civil litigation, legal reform, the investigation of insurance claims, national

disaster planning and preparedness, homeland security, and the advance-

ment of technology—the committee worked with a sense of great commit-

ment and spent countless hours deliberating over the recommendations that

are included in the report. These recommendations, which are inexorably

interconnected, reﬂect the committee’s strong views on policy initiatives that

must be adopted in any plan to improve the forensic science disciplines and

to allow the forensic science community to serve society more effectively.

The task Congress assigned our committee was daunting and required

serious thought and the consideration of an extremely complex and decen-

tralized system, with various players, jurisdictions, demands, and limita-

tions. Throughout our lengthy deliberations, the committee heard testimony

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

xx PREFACE

from the stakeholder community, ensuring that the voices of forensic prac-

titioners were heard and their concerns addressed. We also heard from

professionals who manage forensic laboratories and medical examiner/

coroner ofﬁces; teachers who are devoted to training the next generation

of forensic scientists; scholars who have conducted important research in a

number of forensic science ﬁelds; and members of the legal profession and

law enforcement agencies who understand how forensic science evidence is

collected, analyzed, and used in connection with criminal investigations and

prosecutions. We are deeply grateful to all of the presenters who spoke to

the committee and/or submitted papers for our consideration. These experts

and their work served the committee well.

In considering the testimony and evidence that was presented to the

committee, what surprised us the most was the consistency of the message

that we heard:

The forensic science system, encompassing both research and practice, has

serious problems that can only be addressed by a national commitment to

overhaul the current structure that supports the forensic science commu-

nity in this country. This can only be done with effective leadership at the

highest levels of both federal and state governments, pursuant to national

standards, and with a signiﬁcant infusion of federal funds.

The recommendations in this report represent the committee’s studied opin-

ion on how best to achieve this critical goal.

We had the good fortune to serve as co-chairs of the committee en-

trusted with addressing Congress’ charge. The committee, formed under

the auspices of the National Academies’ Committee on Science, Technol-

ogy, and Law and Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, was

composed of many talented professionals, some expert in various areas of

forensic science, others in law, and still others in different ﬁelds of science

and engineering. They listened, read, questioned, vigorously discussed the

ﬁndings and recommendations offered in this report, and then worked

hard to complete the research and writing required to produce the report.

We are indebted to our colleagues for all the time and energy they gave

to this effort. We are also most grateful to the staff, Anne-Marie Mazza,

Scott Weidman, Steven Kendall, and the consultant writer, Kathi Hanna, for

their superb work and dedication to this project; to staff members David

Padgham and John Sislin, and editor, Sara Maddox, for their assistance;

and to Paige Herwig, Laurie Richardson, and Judith A. Hunt for their ster-

ling contributions in checking source materials and assisting with the ﬁnal

production of the report.

Harry T. Edwards and Constantine Gatsonis

Committee Co-chairs

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

Summary

INTRODUCTION

On November 22, 2005, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 became law.

Under the terms

of the statute, Congress authorized “the National Academy of Sciences to

conduct a study on forensic science, as described in the Senate report.”

The

Senate Report to which the Conference Report refers states:

While a great deal of analysis exists of the requirements in the discipline

of DNA, there exists little to no analysis of the remaining needs of the

community outside of the area of DNA. Therefore . . . the Committee

directs the Attorney General to provide [funds] to the National Academy

of Sciences to create an independent Forensic Science Committee. This

Committee shall include members of the forensics community represent-

ing operational crime laboratories, medical examiners, and coroners; legal

experts; and other scientists as determined appropriate.

The Senate Report also sets forth the charge to the Forensic Science

Committee, instructing it to:

(1) assess the present and future resource needs of the forensic science

community, to include State and local crime labs, medical examin-

ers, and coroners;

P.L. No. 109-108, 119 Stat. 2290 (2005).

H.R. Rep. No. 109-272, at 121 (2005) (Conf. Rep.).

S. Rep. No. 109-88, at 46 (2005).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

2 STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

(2) make recommendations for maximizing the use of forensic tech-

nologies and techniques to solve crimes, investigate deaths, and

protect the public;

(3) identify potential scientiﬁc advances that may assist law enforce-

ment in using forensic technologies and techniques to protect the

public;

(4) make recommendations for programs that will increase the number

of qualiﬁed forensic scientists and medical examiners available to

work in public crime laboratories;

(5) disseminate best practices and guidelines concerning the collection

and analysis of forensic evidence to help ensure quality and con-

sistency in the use of forensic technologies and techniques to solve

crimes, investigate deaths, and protect the public;

(6) examine the role of the forensic community in the homeland secu-

rity mission;

(7) [examine] interoperability of Automated Fingerprint Information

Systems [AFIS]; and

(8) examine additional issues pertaining to forensic science as deter-

mined by the Committee.

In the fall of 2006, a committee was established by the National Acad-

emy of Sciences to implement this congressional charge. As recommended

in the Senate Report, the persons selected to serve included members of the

forensic science community, members of the legal community, and a diverse

group of scientists. Operating under the project title “Identifying the Needs

of the Forensic Science Community,” the committee met on eight occasions:

January 25-26, April 23-24, June 5-6, September 20-21, and December 6-7,

2007, and March 24-25, June 23-24, and November 14-15, 2008. During

these meetings, the committee heard expert testimony and deliberated over

the information it heard and received. Between meetings, committee mem-

bers reviewed numerous published materials, studies, and reports related

to the forensic science disciplines, engaged in independent research on the

subject, and worked on drafts of the ﬁnal report.

Experts who provided testimony included federal agency ofﬁcials; aca-

demics and research scholars; private consultants; federal, state, and local

law enforcement ofﬁcials; scientists; medical examiners; a coroner; crime

laboratory ofﬁcials from the public and private sectors; independent inves-

tigators; defense attorneys; forensic science practitioners; and leadership of

professional and standard setting organizations (see the Acknowledgments

and Appendix B for a complete listing of presenters).

Ibid.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

SUMMARY 3

The issues covered during the committee’s hearings and deliberations

included:

(a) the fundamentals of the scientiﬁc method as applied to forensic

practice—hypothesis generation and testing, falsiﬁability and rep-

lication, and peer review of scientiﬁc publications;

(b) the assessment of forensic methods and technologies—the col-

lection and analysis of forensic data; accuracy and error rates of

forensic analyses; sources of potential bias and human error in in-

terpretation by forensic experts; and proﬁciency testing of forensic

experts;

ment in forensic science;

(d) current training and education in forensic science;

(e) the structure and operation of forensic science laboratories;

(f) the structure and operation of the coroner and medical examiner

systems;

(g) budget, future needs, and priorities of the forensic science com-

munity and the coroner and medical examiner systems;

(h) the accreditation, certiﬁcation, and licensing of forensic science

operations, medical death investigation systems, and scientists;

(i) Scientiﬁc Working Groups (SWGs) and their practices;

(j) forensic science practices—

pattern/experience evidence

o ﬁngerprints (including the interoperability of AFIS)

o ﬁrearms examination

o toolmarks

o bite marks

o impressions (tires, footwear)

o bloodstain pattern analysis

o handwriting

o hair

analytical evidence

o DNA

o coatings (e.g., paint)

o chemicals (including drugs)

o materials (including ﬁbers)

o ﬂuids

o serology

o ﬁre and explosive analysis

digital evidence;

(k) t he effectiveness of coroner systems as compared with medical

examiner systems;

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

4 STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

(l ) the use of forensic evidence in criminal and civil litigation—

o the collection and ﬂow of evidence from crime scenes to

courtrooms

o the manner in which forensic practitioners testify in court

o cases involving the misinterpretation of forensic evidence

o the adversarial system in criminal and civil litigation

o lawyers’ use and misuse of forensic evidence

o judges’ handling of forensic evidence;

(m) forensic practice and projects at various federal agencies, including

NIST, the FBI, DHS, U.S. Secret Service, NIJ, DEA, and DOD;

(n) forensic practice in state and local agencies;

(o) nontraditional forensic service providers; and

(p) the forensic science community in the United Kingdom.

The testimonial and documentary evidence considered by the commit-

tee was detailed, complex, and sometimes controversial. Given this reality,

the committee could not possibly answer every question that it confronted,

nor could it devise speciﬁc solutions for every problem that it identiﬁed.

Rather, it reached a consensus on the most important issues now facing the

forensic science community and medical examiner system and agreed on 13

speciﬁc recommendations to address these issues.

Challenges Facing the Forensic Science Community

For decades, the forensic science disciplines have produced valuable

evidence that has contributed to the successful prosecution and conviction

of criminals as well as to the exoneration of innocent people. Over the last

two decades, advances in some forensic science disciplines, especially the

use of DNA technology, have demonstrated that some areas of forensic

science have great additional potential to help law enforcement identify

criminals. Many crimes that may have gone unsolved are now being solved

because forensic science is helping to identify the perpetrators.

Those advances, however, also have revealed that, in some cases, sub-

stantive information and testimony based on faulty forensic science analyses

may have contributed to wrongful convictions of innocent people. This fact

has demonstrated the potential danger of giving undue weight to evidence

and testimony derived from imperfect testing and analysis. Moreover, im-

precise or exaggerated expert testimony has sometimes contributed to the

admission of erroneous or misleading evidence.

Further advances in the forensic science disciplines will serve three im-

portant purposes. First, further improvements will assist law enforcement

ofﬁcials in the course of their investigations to identify perpetrators with

higher reliability. Second, further improvements in forensic science practices

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

SUMMARY 5

should reduce the occurrence of wrongful convictions, which reduces the

risk that true offenders continue to commit crimes while innocent persons

inappropriately serve time. Third, any improvements in the forensic science

disciplines will undoubtedly enhance the Nation’s ability to address the

needs of homeland security.

Numerous professionals in the forensic science community and the

medical examiner system have worked for years to achieve excellence in

their ﬁelds, aiming to follow high ethical norms, develop sound profes-

sional standards, ensure accurate results in their practices, and improve

the processes by which accuracy is determined. Although the work of these

dedicated professionals has resulted in signiﬁcant progress in the forensic

science disciplines in recent decades, major challenges still face the forensic

science community. It is therefore unsurprising that Congress instructed

this committee to, among other things, “assess the present and future re-

source needs of the forensic science community,” “make recommendations

for maximizing the use of forensic technologies and techniques,” “make

recommendations for programs that will increase the number of qualiﬁed

forensic scientists and medical examiners,” and “disseminate best practices

and guidelines concerning the collection and analysis of forensic evidence to

help ensure quality and consistency in the use of forensic technologies and

techniques.” These are among the pressing issues facing the forensic science

community. The best professionals in the forensic science disciplines invari-

ably are hindered in their work because these and other problems persist.

The length of the congressional charge and the complexity of the mate-

rial under review made the committee’s assignment challenging. In under-

taking it, the committee ﬁrst had to gain an understanding of the various

disciplines within the forensic science community, as well as the communi-

ty’s history, its strengths and weaknesses, and the roles of the people and

agencies that constitute the community and make use of its services. In so

doing, the committee was able to better comprehend some of the major

problems facing the forensic science community and the medical examiner

system. A brief review of some of these problems is illuminating.

Disparities in the Forensic Science Community

There are great disparities among existing forensic science operations in

federal, state, and local law enforcement jurisdictions and agencies. This is

true with respect to funding, access to analytical instrumentation, the avail-

ability of skilled and well-trained personnel, certiﬁcation, accreditation, and

In this report, the “forensic science community,” broadly speaking, is meant to include

forensic pathology and medicolegal death investigation, which is sometimes referred to as “the

medical examiner system” or “the medicolegal death investigation system.”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

6 STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

oversight. As a result, it is not easy to generalize about current practices

within the forensic science community. It is clear, however, that any ap-

proach to overhauling the existing system needs to address and help mini-

mize the community’s current fragmentation and inconsistent practices.

Although the vast majority of criminal law enforcement is handled by

state and local jurisdictions, these entities often are sorely lacking in the

resources (money, staff, training, and equipment) necessary to promote and

maintain strong forensic science laboratory systems. By comparison, federal

programs are often much better funded and staffed. It is also noteworthy

that the resources, the extent of services, and the amount of expertise that

medical examiners and forensic pathologists can provide vary widely in dif-

ferent jurisdictions. As a result, the depth, reliability, and overall quality of

substantive information arising from the forensic examination of evidence

available to the legal system vary substantially across the country.

Lack of Mandatory Standardization, Certiﬁcation, and Accreditation

The fragmentation problem is compounded because operational prin-

ciples and procedures for many forensic science disciplines are not stan-

dardized or embraced, either between or within jurisdictions. There is no

uniformity in the certiﬁcation of forensic practitioners, or in the accredita-

tion of crime laboratories. Indeed, most jurisdictions do not require forensic

practitioners to be certiﬁed, and most forensic science disciplines have no

mandatory certiﬁcation programs. Moreover, accreditation of crime labo-

ratories is not required in most jurisdictions. Often there are no standard

protocols governing forensic practice in a given discipline. And, even when

protocols are in place (e.g., SWG standards), they often are vague and not

enforced in any meaningful way. In short, the quality of forensic practice in

most disciplines varies greatly because of the absence of adequate training

and continuing education, rigorous mandatory certiﬁcation and accredita-

tion programs, adherence to robust performance standards, and effective

oversight.

These shortcomings obviously pose a continuing and serious

threat to the quality and credibility of forensic science practice.

The Broad Range of Forensic Science Disciplines

The term “forensic science” encompasses a broad range of forensic dis-

ciplines, each with its own set of technologies and practices. In other words,

there is wide variability across forensic science disciplines with regard to

See, e.g., P.C. Giannelli. 2007. Wrongful convictions and forensic science: The need to

regulate crime labs. 86 N.C. L. Rev. 163 (2007); B. Schmitt and J. Swickard. 2008. “Detroit

Police Lab Shut Down After Probe Finds Errors.” Detroit Free Press. September 25.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

SUMMARY 7

techniques, methodologies, reliability, types and numbers of potential er-

rors, research, general acceptability, and published material. Some of the

forensic science disciplines are laboratory based (e.g., nuclear and mito-

chondrial DNA analysis, toxicology and drug analysis); others are based

on expert interpretation of observed patterns (e.g., ﬁngerprints, writing

samples, toolmarks, bite marks, and specimens such as hair). The “forensic

science community,” in turn, consists of a host of practitioners, including

scientists (some with advanced degrees) in the ﬁelds of chemistry, biochem-

istry, biology, and medicine; laboratory technicians; crime scene investiga-

tors; and law enforcement ofﬁcers. There are very important differences,

however, between forensic laboratory work and crime scene investigations.

There are also sharp distinctions between forensic practitioners who have

been trained in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and medicine (and who

bring these disciplines to bear in their work) and technicians who lend sup-

port to forensic science enterprises. Many of these differences are discussed

in the body of this report.

The committee decided early in its work that it would not be feasible

to develop a detailed evaluation of each discipline in terms of its scientiﬁc

underpinning, level of development, and ability to provide evidence to ad-

dress the major types of questions raised in criminal prosecutions and civil

litigation. However, the committee solicited testimony on a broad range

of forensic science disciplines and sought to identify issues relevant across

deﬁnable classes of disciplines. As a result of listening to this testimony

and reviewing related written materials, the committee found substantial

evidence indicating that the level of scientiﬁc development and evaluation

varies substantially among the forensic science disciplines.

Problems Relating to the Interpretation of Forensic Evidence

Often in criminal prosecutions and civil litigation, forensic evidence

is offered to support conclusions about “individualization” (sometimes

referred to as “matching” a specimen to a particular individual or other

source) or about classiﬁcation of the source of the specimen into one of

several categories. With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, however,

no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to

consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection

between evidence and a speciﬁc individual or source. In terms of scientiﬁc

basis, the analytically based disciplines generally hold a notable edge over

disciplines based on expert interpretation. But there are important varia-

tions among the disciplines relying on expert interpretation. For example,

there are more established protocols and available research for ﬁngerprint

analysis than for the analysis of bite marks. There also are signiﬁcant varia-

tions within each discipline. For example, not all ﬁngerprint evidence is

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

8 STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

equally good, because the true value of the evidence is determined by the

quality of the latent ﬁngerprint image. These disparities between and within

the forensic science disciplines highlight a major problem in the forensic sci-

ence community: The simple reality is that the interpretation of forensic evi-

dence is not always based on scientiﬁc studies to determine its validity. This

is a serious problem. Although research has been done in some disciplines,

there is a notable dearth of peer-reviewed, published studies establishing

the scientiﬁc bases and validity of many forensic methods.

The Need for Research to Establish Limits and Measures of Performance

In evaluating the accuracy of a forensic analysis, it is crucial to clarify

the type of question the analysis is called on to address. Thus, although

some techniques may be too imprecise to permit accurate identiﬁcation of

a speciﬁc individual, they may still provide useful and accurate information

about questions of classiﬁcation. For example, microscopic hair analysis

may provide reliable evidence on some characteristics of the individual from

which the specimen was taken, but it may not be able to reliably match the

specimen with a speciﬁc individual. However, the deﬁnition of the appro-

priate question is only a ﬁrst step in the evaluation of the performance of a

forensic technique. A body of research is required to establish the limits and

measures of performance and to address the impact of sources of variability

and potential bias. Such research is sorely needed, but it seems to be lack-

ing in most of the forensic disciplines that rely on subjective assessments

of matching characteristics. These disciplines need to develop rigorous

protocols to guide these subjective interpretations and pursue equally rigor-

ous research and evaluation programs. The development of such research

programs can beneﬁt signiﬁcantly from other areas, notably from the large

body of research on the evaluation of observer performance in diagnostic

medicine and from the ﬁndings of cognitive psychology on the potential for

bias and error in human observers.

Several articles, for example, have noted the lack of scientiﬁc validation of ﬁngerprint iden-

tiﬁcation methods. See, e.g., J.J. Koehler. Fingerprint error rates and proﬁciency tests: What

they are and why they matter. 59 Hastings L.J. 1077 (2008); L. Haber and R.N. Haber.

2008. Scientiﬁc validation of ﬁngerprint evidence under Daubert. Law, Probability and Risk

7(2):87; J.L. Mnookin. 2008. The validity of latent ﬁngerprint identiﬁcation: Confessions of

a ﬁngerprinting moderate. Law, Probability and Risk 7(2):127.

The ﬁndings of forensic science experts are vulnerable to cognitive and contextual bias. See,

e.g., I.E. Dror, D. Charlton, and A.E. Péron. 2006. Contextual information renders experts

vulnerable to making erroneous identiﬁcations. Forensic Science International 156:74, 77.

(“Our study shows that it is possible to alter identiﬁcation decisions on the same ﬁngerprint,

solely by presenting it in a different context.”); I.E. Dror and D. Charlton. 2006. Why experts

make errors. Journal of Forensic Identiﬁcation 56(4):600; Giannelli, supra note 6, pp. 220-

222. Unfortunately, at least to date, there is no good evidence to indicate that the forensic

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

SUMMARY 9

The Admission of Forensic Science Evidence in Litigation

Forensic science experts and evidence are used routinely in the service

of the criminal justice system. DNA testing may be used to determine

whether sperm found on a rape victim came from an accused party; a latent

ﬁngerprint found on a gun may be used to determine whether a defendant

handled the weapon; drug analysis may be used to determine whether pills

found in a person’s possession were illicit; and an autopsy may be used

to determine the cause and manner of death of a murder victim. In order

for qualiﬁed forensic science experts to testify competently about forensic

evidence, they must ﬁrst ﬁnd the evidence in a usable state and properly

preserve it. A latent ﬁngerprint that is badly smudged when found cannot

be usefully saved, analyzed, or explained. An inadequate drug sample may

be insufﬁcient to allow for proper analysis. And, DNA tests performed on a

contaminated or otherwise compromised sample cannot be used reliably to

identify or eliminate an individual as the perpetrator of a crime. These are

important matters involving the proper processing of forensic evidence. The

law’s greatest dilemma in its heavy reliance on forensic evidence, however,

concerns the question of whether—and to what extent—there is science in

any given forensic science discipline.

Two very important questions should underlie the law’s admission

of and reliance upon forensic evidence in criminal trials: (1) the extent

to which a particular forensic discipline is founded on a reliable scientiﬁc

methodology that gives it the capacity to accurately analyze evidence and

report ﬁndings and (2) the extent to which practitioners in a particular

forensic discipline rely on human interpretation that could be tainted by

error, the threat of bias, or the absence of sound operational procedures

and robust performance standards. These questions are signiﬁcant. Thus, it

matters a great deal whether an expert is qualiﬁed to testify about forensic

evidence and whether the evidence is sufﬁciently reliable to merit a fact

ﬁnder’s reliance on the truth that it purports to support. Unfortunately,

these important questions do not always produce satisfactory answers in

judicial decisions pertaining to the admissibility of forensic science evidence

proffered in criminal trials.

In 1993, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,

the Su-

preme Court ruled that, under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence

(which covers both civil trials and criminal prosecutions in the federal

courts), a “trial judge must ensure that any and all scientiﬁc testimony or

evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.”

The Court indicated

science community has made a sufﬁcient effort to address the bias issue; thus, it is impossible

for the committee to fully assess the magnitude of the problem.

509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Ibid., p. 589.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

10 STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

that the subject of an expert’s testimony should be scientiﬁc knowledge, so

that “evidentiary reliability will be based upon scientiﬁc validity.”

The

Court also emphasized that, in considering the admissibility of evidence, a

trial judge should focus “solely” on the expert’s “principles and methodol-

ogy,” and “not on the conclusions that they generate.”

In sum, Daubert’s

requirement that an expert’s testimony pertain to “scientiﬁc knowledge”

established a standard of “evidentiary reliability.”

In explaining this evidentiary standard, the Daubert Court pointed

to several factors that might be considered by a trial judge: (1) whether a

theory or technique can be (and has been) tested; (2) whether the theory

or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the

known or potential rate of error of a particular scientiﬁc technique; (4) the

existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s opera-

tion; and (5) a scientiﬁc technique’s degree of acceptance within a relevant

scientiﬁc community.

In the end, however, the Court emphasized that the

inquiry under Rule 702 is “a ﬂexible one.”

The Court expressed conﬁ-

dence in the adversarial system, noting that “[v]igorous cross-examination,

presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden

of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but

admissible evidence.”

The Supreme Court has made it clear that trial

judges have great discretion in deciding on the admissibility of evidence

under Rule 702, and that appeals from Daubert rulings are subject to a

very narrow abuse-of-discretion standard of review.

Most importantly,

in Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, the Court stated that “whether

Daubert’s speciﬁc factors are, or are not, reasonable measures of reliability

in a particular case is a matter that the law grants the trial judge broad

latitude to determine.”

Ibid., pp. 590 and 591 n.9 (emphasis omitted).

Ibid., p. 595. In General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997), the Court

added: “[C]onclusions and methodology are not entirely distinct from one another. Trained

experts commonly extrapolate from existing data. But nothing in Daubert or the Federal Rules

of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing

data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.”

Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589, 590 n.9, 595.

Ibid., pp. 593-94.

Ibid., p. 594. In Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Court

conﬁrmed that the Daubert factors do not constitute a deﬁnitive checklist or test. Kumho Tire

importantly held that Rule 702 applies to both scientiﬁc and nonscientiﬁc expert testimony;

the Court also indicated that the Daubert factors might be applicable in a trial judge’s as-

sessment of the reliability of nonscientiﬁc expert testimony, depending upon “the particular

circumstances of the particular case at issue.” Ibid., at 150.

Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596.

See Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 142-143 (1997).

Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 153.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

SUMMARY 11

Daubert and its progeny have engendered confusion and controversy.

In particular, judicial dispositions of Daubert-type questions in criminal

cases have been criticized by some lawyers and scholars who thought that

the Supreme Court’s decision would be applied more rigorously.

If one

focuses solely on reported federal appellate decisions, the picture is not

appealing to those who have preferred a more rigorous application of

Daubert. Federal appellate courts have not with any consistency or clarity

imposed standards ensuring the application of scientiﬁcally valid reasoning

and reliable methodology in criminal cases involving Daubert questions.

This is not really surprising, however. The Supreme Court itself described

the Daubert standard as “ﬂexible.” This means that, beyond questions of

relevance, Daubert offers appellate courts no clear substantive standard by

which to review decisions by trial courts. As a result, trial judges exercise

great discretion in deciding whether to admit or exclude expert testimony,

and their judgments are subject only to a highly deferential “abuse of dis-

cretion” standard of review. Although it is difﬁcult to get a clear picture

of how trial courts handle Daubert challenges, because many evidentiary

rulings are issued without a published opinion and without an appeal, the

vast majority of the reported opinions in criminal cases indicate that trial

judges rarely exclude or restrict expert testimony offered by prosecutors;

most reported opinions also indicate that appellate courts routinely deny

appeals contesting trial court decisions admitting forensic evidence against

criminal defendants.

But the reported opinions do not offer in any way a

complete sample of federal trial court dispositions of Daubert-type ques-

tions in criminal cases.

The situation appears to be very different in civil cases. Plaintiffs and

defendants, equally, are more likely to have access to expert witnesses in

civil cases, while prosecutors usually have an advantage over most defen-

dants in offering expert testimony in criminal cases. And, ironically, the

appellate courts appear to be more willing to second-guess trial court judg-

ments on the admissibility of purported scientiﬁc evidence in civil cases than

in criminal cases.

See, e.g., P.J. Neufeld. 2005. The (near) irrelevance of Daubert to criminal justice: And

some suggestions for reform. American Journal of Public Health 95(Supp.1):S107.

Ibid., p. S109.

See, e.g., McClain v. Metabolife Int’l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2005); Chapman

v. Maytag Corp., 297 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2002); Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R.

Co., 215 F.3d 1083 (10th Cir. 2000); Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2000);

Walker v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 208 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2000); 1 D.L. Faigman, M.J. Saks, J.

Sanders, and E.K. Cheng. 2007-2008. Modern Scientiﬁc Evidence: The Law and Science of

Expert Testimony. Eagan, MN: Thomson/West, § 1.35, p. 105 (discussing studies suggesting

that courts “employ Daubert more lackadaisically in criminal trials—especially in regard to

prosecution evidence—than in civil cases—especially in regard to plaintiff evidence”).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

12 STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

Prophetically, the Daubert decision observed that “there are important

differences between the quest for truth in the courtroom and the quest for

truth in the laboratory. Scientiﬁc conclusions are subject to perpetual revi-

sion. Law, on the other hand, must resolve disputes ﬁnally and quickly.”

But because accused parties in criminal cases are convicted on the basis of

testimony from forensic science experts, much depends upon whether the

evidence offered is reliable. Furthermore, in addition to protecting innocent

persons from being convicted of crimes that they did not commit, we are

also seeking to protect society from persons who have committed criminal

acts. Law enforcement ofﬁcials and the members of society they serve need

to be assured that forensic techniques are reliable. Therefore, we must limit

the risk of having the reliability of certain forensic science methodologies

judicially certiﬁed before the techniques have been properly studied and

their accuracy veriﬁed by the forensic science community. “[T]here is no

evident reason why [‘rigorous, systematic’] research would be infeasible.”

However, some courts appear to be loath to insist on such research as a

condition of admitting forensic science evidence in criminal cases, perhaps

because to do so would likely “demand more by way of validation than the

disciplines can presently offer.”

The adversarial process relating to the admission and exclusion of

scientiﬁc evidence is not suited to the task of ﬁnding “scientiﬁc truth.” The

judicial system is encumbered by, among other things, judges and lawyers

who generally lack the scientiﬁc expertise necessary to comprehend and

evaluate forensic evidence in an informed manner, trial judges (sitting alone)

who must decide evidentiary issues without the beneﬁt of judicial col-

leagues and often with little time for extensive research and reﬂection, and

the highly deferential nature of the appellate review afforded trial courts’

Daubert rulings. Given these realities, there is a tremendous need for the

forensic science community to improve. Judicial review, by itself, will not

cure the inﬁrmities of the forensic science community.

The development

Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596-97.

J. Grifﬁn and D.J. LaMagna. 2002. Daubert challenges to forensic evidence: Ballistics

next on the ﬁring line. The Champion, September-October:20, 21 (quoting P. Giannelli and E.

Imwinkelried. 2000. Scientiﬁc evidence: The fallout from Supreme Court’s decision in Kumho

Tire. Criminal Justice Magazine 14(4):12, 40).

Ibid. See, e.g., United States v. Crisp, 324 F.3d 261, 270 (4th Cir. 2003) (noting “that

while further research into ﬁngerprint analysis would be welcome, to postpone present in-court

utilization of this bedrock forensic identiﬁer pending such research would be to make the best

the enemy of the good.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

See J.L. Mnookin. Expert evidence, partisanship, and epistemic competence. 73 Brook.

L. rev. 1009, 1033 (2008) (“[S]o long as we have our adversarial system in much its pres-

ent form, we are inevitably going to be stuck with approaches to expert evidence that are

imperfect, conceptually unsatisfying, and awkward. It may well be that the real lesson is this:

those who believe that we might ever fully resolve—rather than imperfectly manage—the

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

SUMMARY 13

of scientiﬁc research, training, technology, and databases associated with

DNA analysis have resulted from substantial and steady federal support

for both academic research and programs employing techniques for DNA

analysis. Similar support must be given to all credible forensic science dis-

ciplines if they are to achieve the degrees of reliability needed to serve the

goals of justice. With more and better educational programs, accredited

laboratories, certiﬁed forensic practitioners, sound operational principles

and procedures, and serious research to establish the limits and measures

of performance in each discipline, forensic science experts will be better

able to analyze evidence and coherently report their ﬁndings in the courts.

The current situation, however, is seriously wanting, both because of the

limitations of the judicial system and because of the many problems faced

by the forensic science community.

Political Realities

Most forensic science methods, programs, and evidence are within

the regulatory province of state and local law enforcement entities or are

covered by statutes and rules governing state judicial proceedings. Thus,

in assessing the strengths, weaknesses, and future needs of forensic disci-

plines, and in making recommendations for improving the use of forensic

technologies and techniques, the committee remained mindful of the fact

that Congress cannot directly ﬁx all of the deﬁciencies in the forensic sci-

ence community. Under our federal system of government, Congress does

not have free reign to amend state criminal codes, rules of evidence, and

statutes governing civil actions; nor may it easily and directly regulate local

law enforcement practices, state and local medical examiner units, or state

policies covering the accreditation of crime laboratories and the certiﬁca-

tion of forensic practitioners.

Congress’ authority to act is signiﬁcant, however. Forensic science pro-

grams in federal government entities—whether within DOJ, DHS, DOD,

or the Department of Commerce (DOC)—are funded by congressional

appropriations. If these programs are required to operate pursuant to the

highest standards, they will provide an example for the states. More im-

portantly, Congress can promote “best practices” and strong educational,

certiﬁcation, accreditation, ethics, and oversight programs in the states by

offering funds that are contingent on meeting appropriate standards of

practice. There is every reason to believe that offers of federal funds with

“strings attached” can effect signiﬁcant change in the forensic science com-

deep structural tensions surrounding both partisanship and epistemic competence that per-

meate the use of scientiﬁc evidence within our legal system are almost certainly destined for

disappointment.”).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

14 STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

munity, because so many state and local programs currently are suffering

for want of adequate resources. In the end, however, the committee recog-

nized that state and local authorities must be willing to enforce change if

it is to happen.

In light of the foregoing issues, the committee exercised caution before

drawing conclusions and avoided being too prescriptive in its recommen-

dations. It also recognized that, given the complexity of the issues and the

political realities that may pose obstacles to change, some recommenda-

tions will have to be implemented creatively and over time in order to be

effective.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Fragmented System: Symptoms and Cures

The forensic science disciplines currently are an assortment of methods

and practices used in both the public and private arenas. Forensic science

facilities exhibit wide variability in capacity, oversight, stafﬁng, certiﬁca-

tion, and accreditation across federal and state jurisdictions. Too often they

have inadequate educational programs, and they typically lack mandatory

and enforceable standards, founded on rigorous research and testing, cer-

tiﬁcation requirements, and accreditation programs. Additionally, forensic

science and forensic pathology research, education, and training lack strong

ties to our research universities and national science assets. In addition to

the problems emanating from the fragmentation of the forensic science

community, the most recently published Census of Crime Laboratories

conducted by BJS describes unacceptable case backlogs in state and local

crime laboratories and estimates the level of additional resources needed

to handle these backlogs and prevent their recurrence. Unfortunately, the

backlogs, even in DNA case processing, have grown dramatically in recent

years and are now staggering in some jurisdictions. The most recently

published BJS Special Report of Medical Examiners and Coroners’ Ofﬁces

also depicts a system with disparate and often inadequate educational and

training requirements, resources, and capacities—in short, a system in need

of signiﬁcant improvement.

Existing data suggest that forensic laboratories are underresourced

and understaffed, which contributes to case backlogs and likely makes it

difﬁcult for laboratories to do as much as they could to (1) inform investi-

gations, (2) provide strong evidence for prosecutions, and (3) avoid errors

that could lead to imperfect justice. Being underresourced also means that

the tools of forensic science—and the knowledge base that underpins the

analysis and interpretation of evidence—are not as strong as they could

be, thus hindering the ability of the forensic science disciplines to excel at

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

SUMMARY 15

informing investigations, providing strong evidence, and avoiding errors in

important ways. NIJ is the only federal agency that provides direct support

to crime laboratories to alleviate the backlog, and those funds are minimal.

The forensic science system is underresourced also in the sense that it has

only thin ties to an academic research base that could support the forensic

science disciplines and ﬁll knowledge gaps. There are many hard-working

and conscientious people in the forensic science community, but this under-

resourcing inherently limits their ability to do their best work. Additional

resources surely will be necessary to create high-quality, self-correcting

systems.

However, increasing the staff within existing crime laboratories and

medical examiners’ ofﬁces is only part of the solution. What also is needed

is an upgrading of systems and organizational structures, better training,

the widespread adoption of uniform and enforceable best practices, and

mandatory certiﬁcation and accreditation programs. The forensic science

community and the medical examiner/coroner system must be upgraded if

forensic practitioners are to be expected to serve the goals of justice.

Of the various facets of underresourcing, the committee is most con-

cerned about the knowledge base. Adding more dollars and people to the

enterprise might reduce case backlogs, but it will not address fundamental

limitations in the capabilities of forensic science disciplines to discern valid

information from crime scene evidence. For the most part, it is impossible

to discern the magnitude of those limitations, and reasonable people will

differ on their signiﬁcance.

Forensic science research is not well supported, and there is no uni-

ﬁed strategy for developing a forensic science research plan across federal

agencies. Relative to other areas of science, the forensic disciplines have

extremely limited opportunities for research funding. Although the FBI and

NIJ have supported some research in forensic science, the level of support

has been well short of what is necessary for the forensic science community

to establish strong links with a broad base of research universities. Moreover,

funding for academic research is limited and requires law enforcement col-

laboration, which can inhibit the pursuit of more fundamental scientiﬁc

questions essential to establishing the foundation of forensic science. The

broader research community generally is not engaged in conducting re-

search relevant to advancing the forensic science disciplines.

The forensic science enterprise also is hindered by its extreme

disaggregation—marked by multiple types of practitioners with different

levels of education and training and different professional cultures and

standards for performance and a reliance on apprentice-type training and

a guild-like structure of disciplines, which work against the goal of a

single forensic science profession. Many forensic scientists are given scant

opportunity for professional activities, such as attending conferences or

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

16 STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

publishing their research, which could help strengthen the professional

community and offset some of the disaggregation. The fragmented nature

of the enterprise raises the worrisome prospect that the quality of evidence

presented in court, and its interpretation, can vary unpredictably according

to jurisdiction.

Numerous professional associations are organized around the forensic

science disciplines, and many of them are involved in training and educa-

tion (see Chapter 8) and are developing standards and accreditation and

certiﬁcation programs (see Chapter 7). The efforts of these groups are

laudable. However, except for the largest organizations, it is not clear how

these associations interact or the extent to which they share requirements,

standards, or policies. Thus, there is a need for more consistent and har-

monized requirements.

In the course of its deliberations and review of the forensic science en-

terprise, it became obvious to the committee that, although congressional

action will not remedy all of the deﬁciencies in forensic science methods

and practices, truly meaningful advances will not come without signiﬁcant

concomitant leadership from the federal government. The forensic science

enterprise lacks the necessary governance structure to pull itself up from

its current weaknesses. Of the many professional societies that serve the

enterprise, none is dominant, and none has clearly articulated the need for

change or presented a vision for accomplishing it. And clearly no munici-

pal or state forensic ofﬁce has the mandate to lead the entire enterprise.

The major federal resources—NIJ and the FBI Laboratory—have provided

modest leadership, for which they should be commended: NIJ has contrib-

uted a helpful research program and the FBI Laboratory has spearheaded

the SWGs. But again, neither entity has recognized, let alone articulated,

a need for change or a vision for achieving it. Neither has the full conﬁ-

dence of the larger forensic science community. And because both are part

of a prosecutorial department of the government, they could be subject to

subtle contextual biases that should not be allowed to undercut the power

of forensic science.

The forensic science enterprise needs strong governance to adopt and

promote an aggressive, long-term agenda to help strengthen the forensic

science disciplines. Governance must be strong enough—and independent

enough—to identify the limitations of forensic science methodologies, and

must be well connected with the Nation’s scientiﬁc research base to effect

meaningful advances in forensic science practices. The governance structure

must be able to create appropriate incentives for jurisdictions to adopt and

adhere to best practices and promulgate the necessary sanctions to discour-

age bad practices. It must have inﬂuence with educators in order to effect

improvements to forensic science education. It must be able to identify

standards and enforce them. A governance entity must be geared toward

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

SUMMARY 17

(and be credible within) the law enforcement community, but it must have

strengths that extend beyond that area. Oversight of the forensic science com-

munity and medical examiner system will sweep broadly into areas of crimi-

nal investigation and prosecution, civil litigation, legal reform, investigation

of insurance claims, national disaster planning and preparedness, homeland

security, certiﬁcation of federal, state, and local forensic practitioners, public

health, accreditation of public and private laboratories, research to improve

forensic methodologies, education programs in colleges and universities, and

advancing technology.

The committee considered whether such a governing entity could be

established within an existing federal agency. The National Science Founda-

tion (NSF) was considered because of its strengths in leading research and

its connections to the research and education communities. NSF is surely

capable of building and sustaining a research base, but it has very thin ties

to the forensic science community. It would be necessary for NSF to take

many untested steps if it were to assume responsibility for the governance

of applied ﬁelds of science. The committee also considered NIST. In the end

analysis, however, NIST did not appear to be a viable option. It has a good

program of research targeted at forensic science and law enforcement, but

the program is modest. NIST also has strong ties to industry and academia,

and it has an eminent history in standard setting and method development.

But its ties to the forensic science community are still limited, and it would

not be seen as a natural leader by the scholars, scientists, and practitioners

in the ﬁeld. In sum, the committee concluded that neither NSF nor NIST has

the breadth of experience or institutional capacity to establish an effective

governance structure for the forensic science enterprise.

There was also a strong consensus in the committee that no existing

or new division or unit within DOJ would be an appropriate location for

a new entity governing the forensic science community. DOJ’s principal

mission is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States

according to the law. Agencies within DOJ operate pursuant to this mission.

The FBI, for example, is the investigative arm of DOJ and its principal mis-

sions are to produce and use intelligence to protect the Nation from threats

and to bring to justice those who violate the law. The work of these law

enforcement units is critically important to the Nation, but the scope of the

work done by DOJ units is much narrower than the promise of a strong

forensic science community. Forensic science serves more than just law

enforcement; and when it does serve law enforcement, it must be equally

available to law enforcement ofﬁcers, prosecutors, and defendants in the

criminal justice system. The entity that is established to govern the forensic

science community cannot be principally beholden to law enforcement. The

potential for conﬂicts of interest between the needs of law enforcement and

the broader needs of forensic science are too great. In addition, the com-

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

18 STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

mittee determined that the research funding strategies of DOJ have not

adequately served the broad needs of the forensic science community. This

is understandable, but not acceptable when the issue is whether an agency is

best suited to support and oversee the Nation’s forensic science community.

In sum, the committee concluded that advancing science in the forensic sci-

ence enterprise is not likely to be achieved within the conﬁnes of DOJ.

Furthermore, there is little doubt that some existing federal entities are

too wedded to the current “fragmented” forensic science community, which

is deﬁcient in too many respects. Most notably, these existing agencies have

failed to pursue a rigorous research agenda to conﬁrm the evidentiary reli-

ability of methodologies used in a number of forensic science disciplines.

These agencies are not good candidates to oversee the overhaul of the fo-

rensic science community in the United States.

Finally, some existing federal agencies with other missions occasionally

have undertaken projects affecting the forensic science community. These

entities are better left to continue the good work that deﬁnes their principal

missions. More responsibility is not better for these existing entities, nor

would it be better for the forensic science community or the Nation.

The committee thus concluded that the problems at issue are too seri-

ous and important to be subsumed by an existing federal agency. It also

concluded that no existing federal agency has the capacity or appropriate

mission to take on the roles and responsibilities needed to govern and im-

prove the forensic science enterprise.

The committee believes that what is needed to support and oversee the

forensic science community is a new, strong, and independent entity that

could take on the tasks that would be assigned to it in a manner that is as

objective and free of bias as possible—one with no ties to the past and with

the authority and resources to implement a fresh agenda designed to address

the problems found by the committee and discussed in this report. A new

organization should not be encumbered by the assumptions, expectations,

and deﬁciencies of the existing fragmented infrastructure, which has failed

to address the needs and challenges of the forensic science disciplines.

This new entity must be an independent federal agency established to

address the needs of the forensic science community, and it must meet the

following minimum criteria:

• It must have a culture that is strongly rooted in science, with strong

ties to the national research and teaching communities, including

federal laboratories.

• It must have strong ties to state and local forensic entities as well

as to the professional organizations within the forensic science

community.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

SUMMARY 19

• It must not be in any way committed to the existing system, but

should be informed by its experiences.

• It must not be part of a law enforcement agency.

• It must have the funding, independence, and sufﬁcient prominence

to raise the proﬁle of the forensic science disciplines and push ef-

fectively for improvements.

• It must be led by persons who are skilled and experienced in de-

veloping and executing national strategies and plans for standard

setting; managing accreditation and testing processes; and devel-

oping and implementing rulemaking, oversight, and sanctioning

processes.

No federal agency currently exists that meets all of these criteria.

Recommendation 1:

To promote the development of forensic science into a mature

ﬁeld of multidisciplinary research and practice, founded on the

systematic collection and analysis of relevant data, Congress should

establish and appropriate funds for an independent federal entity,

the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS). NIFS should have

a full-time administrator and an advisory board with expertise in

research and education, the forensic science disciplines, physical

and life sciences, forensic pathology, engineering, information tech-

nology, measurements and standards, testing and evaluation, law,

national security, and public policy. NIFS should focus on:

(a) establishing and enforcing best practices for forensic sci-

ence professionals and laboratories;

(b) establishing standards for the mandatory accreditation of

forensic science laboratories and the mandatory certiﬁca-

tion of forensic scientists and medical examiners/forensic

pathologists—and identifying the entity/entities that will

develop and implement accreditation and certiﬁcation;

and technical development in the forensic science disci-

plines and forensic medicine;

(d) developing a strategy to improve forensic science research

and educational programs, including forensic pathology;

(e) establishing a strategy, based on accurate data on the fo-

rensic science community, for the efﬁcient allocation of

available funds to give strong support to forensic method-

ologies and practices in addition to DNA analysis;

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

20 STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

(f) funding state and local forensic science agencies, inde-

pendent research projects, and educational programs as

recommended in this report, with conditions that aim to

advance the credibility and reliability of the forensic sci-

ence disciplines;

(g) overseeing education standards and the accreditation of

forensic science programs in colleges and universities;

(h) developing programs to improve understanding of the fo-

rensic science disciplines and their limitations within legal

systems; and

(i) assessing the development and introduction of new tech-

nologies in forensic investigations, including a comparison

of new technologies with former ones.

The beneﬁts that will ﬂow from a strong, independent, strategic, coher-

ent, and well-funded federal program to support and oversee the forensic

science disciplines in this country are clear: The Nation will (1) bolster

its ability to more accurately identify true perpetrators and exclude those

who are falsely accused; (2) improve its ability to effectively respond to,

attribute, and prosecute threats to homeland security; and (3) reduce the

likelihood of convictions resting on inaccurate data. Moreover, establishing

the scientiﬁc foundation of the forensic science disciplines, providing better

education and training, and requiring certiﬁcation and accreditation will

position the forensic science community to take advantage of current and

future scientiﬁc advances.

The creation of a new federal entity undoubtedly will pose challenges,

not the least of which will be budgetary constraints. The committee is not

in a position to estimate how much it will cost to implement the recom-

mendations in this report; this is a matter best left to the expertise of the

Congressional Budget Ofﬁce. What is clear, however, is that Congress must

take aggressive action if the worst ills of the forensic science community

are to be cured. Political and budgetary concerns should not deter bold,

creative, and forward-looking action, because the country cannot afford to

suffer the consequences of inaction. It will also take time and patience to

implement the recommendations in this report. But this is true with any

large, complex, important, and challenging enterprise.

The committee strongly believes that the greatest hope for success in

this enterprise will come with the creation of the National Institute of Fo-

rensic Science (NIFS) to oversee and direct the forensic science community.

The remaining recommendations in this report are crucially tied to the

creation of NIFS. However, each recommendation is a separate, essential

piece of the plan to improve the forensic science community in the United

States. Therefore, even if the creation of NIFS is forestalled, the committee

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

SUMMARY 21

vigorously supports the adoption of the core ideas and principles embedded

in each of the following recommendations.

Standardized Terminology and Reporting

The terminology used in reporting and testifying about the results of

forensic science investigations must be standardized. Many terms are used

by forensic scientists in scientiﬁc reports and in court testimony that de-

scribe ﬁndings, conclusions, and degrees of association between evidentiary

material (e.g., hairs, ﬁngerprints, ﬁbers) and particular people or objects.

Such terms include, but are not limited to “match,” “consistent with,”

“identical,” “similar in all respects tested,” and “cannot be excluded as the

source of.” The use of such terms can and does have a profound effect on

how the trier of fact in a criminal or civil matter perceives and evaluates sci-

entiﬁc evidence. Although some forensic science disciplines have proposed

reporting vocabulary and scales, the use of the recommended language is

not standard practice among forensic science practitioners.

As a general matter, laboratory reports generated as the result of a

scientiﬁc analysis should be complete and thorough. They should contain,

at minimum, “methods and materials,” “procedures,” “results,” “conclu-

sions,” and, as appropriate, sources and magnitudes of uncertainty in

the procedures and conclusions (e.g., levels of conﬁdence). Some forensic

science laboratory reports meet this standard of reporting, but many do

not. Some reports contain only identifying and agency information, a brief

description of the evidence being submitted, a brief description of the

types of analysis requested, and a short statement of the results (e.g., “the

greenish, brown plant material in item #1 was identiﬁed as marijuana”),

and they include no mention of methods or any discussion of measurement

uncertainties.

Many clinical and testing disciplines outside the forensic science disci-

plines have standards, templates, and protocols for data reporting. A good

example is the ISO/IEC 17025 standard (commonly called “ISO 17025”).

ISO 17025 is an international standard published by the International

Organization for Standardization (ISO) that speciﬁes the general require-

ments for the competence to carry out tests and/or calibrations. These

requirements have been used by accrediting agencies to determine what a

laboratory must do to secure accreditation. In addition, some SWGs in the

forensic disciplines have scoring systems for reporting ﬁndings, but these

systems are neither uniformly nor consistently used. In other words, al-

though appropriate standards exist, they are not always followed. Forensic

reports, and any courtroom testimony stemming from them, must include

clear characterizations of the limitations of the analyses, including measures

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

22 STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

of uncertainty in reported results and associated estimated probabilities

where possible.

Recommendation 2:

The National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS), after review-

ing established standards such as ISO 17025, and in consultation

with its advisory board, should establish standard terminology to

be used in reporting on and testifying about the results of forensic

science investigations. Similarly, it should establish model labora-

tory reports for different forensic science disciplines and specify

the minimum information that should be included. As part of the

accreditation and certiﬁcation processes, laboratories and forensic

scientists should be required to utilize model laboratory reports

when summarizing the results of their analyses.

More and Better Research

As noted above, some forensic science disciplines are supported by

little rigorous systematic research to validate the discipline’s basic premises

and techniques. There is no evident reason why such research cannot be

conducted. Much more federal funding is needed to support research in

the forensic science disciplines and forensic pathology in universities and

private laboratories committed to such work.

The forensic science and medical examiner communities will be im-

proved by opportunities to collaborate with the broader science and engi-

neering communities. In particular, there is an urgent need for collaborative

efforts to (1) develop new technical methods or provide in-depth grounding

for advances developed in the forensic science disciplines; (2) provide an

interface between the forensic science and medical examiner communities

and basic sciences; and (3) create fertile ground for discourse among the

communities. NIFS should recommend, implement, and guide strategies for

supporting such initiatives.

Recommendation 3:

Research is needed to address issues of accuracy, reliability, and

validity in the forensic science disciplines. The National Institute

of Forensic Science (NIFS) should competitively fund peer-reviewed

research in the following areas:

(a) Studies establishing the scientiﬁc bases demonstrating the

validity of forensic methods.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

SUMMARY 23

(b) The development and establishment of quantiﬁable mea-

sures of the reliability and accuracy of forensic analyses.

Studies of the reliability and accuracy of forensic tech-

niques should reﬂect actual practice on realisticcase sce-

narios, averaged across a representative sample of forensic

scientists and laboratories. Studies also should establish

the limits of reliability and accuracy that analytic methods

can be expected to achieve as the conditions of forensic

evidence vary. The research by which measures of reliabil-

ity and accuracy are determined should be peer reviewed

and published in respected scientiﬁc journals.

in the conclusions of forensic analyses.

(d) Automated techniques capable of enhancing forensic

technologies.

To answer questions regarding the reliability and accuracy of a forensic

analysis, the research needs to distinguish between average performance

(achieved across individual practitioners and laboratories) and individual

performance (achieved by the speciﬁc practitioner and laboratory). Whether

a forensic procedure is sufﬁcient under the rules of evidence governing crim-

inal and civil litigation raises difﬁcult legal issues that are outside the realm

of scientiﬁc inquiry. (Some of the legal issues are addressed in Chapter 3.)

Best Practices and Standards

Although there have been notable efforts to achieve standardization

and develop best practices in some forensic science disciplines and the

medical examiner system, most disciplines still lack best practices or any

coherent structure for the enforcement of operating standards, certiﬁca-

tion, and accreditation. Standards and codes of ethics exist in some ﬁelds,

and there are some functioning certiﬁcation and accreditation programs,

but none are mandatory. In short, oversight and enforcement of operating

standards, certiﬁcation, accreditation, and ethics are lacking in most local

and state jurisdictions.

Scientiﬁc and medical assessment conducted in forensic investigations

should be independent of law enforcement efforts either to prosecute crimi-

nal suspects or even to determine whether a criminal act has indeed been

committed. Administratively, this means that forensic scientists should

function independently of law enforcement administrators. The best sci-

ence is conducted in a scientiﬁc setting as opposed to a law enforcement

setting. Because forensic scientists often are driven in their work by a need

to answer a particular question related to the issues of a particular case,

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

24 STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

they sometimes face pressure to sacriﬁce appropriate methodology for the

sake of expediency.

Recommendation 4:

To improve the scientiﬁc bases of forensic science examinations

and to maximize independence from or autonomy within the law

enforcement community, Congress should authorize and appropri-

ate incentive funds to the National Institute of Forensic Science

(NIFS) for allocation to state and local jurisdictions for the purpose

of removing all public forensic laboratories and facilities from the

administrative control of law enforcement agencies or prosecutors’

ofﬁces.

Recommendation 5:

The National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) should encourage

research programs on human observer bias and sources of human

error in forensic examinations. Such programs might include stud-

ies to determine the effects of contextual bias in forensic practice

(e.g., studies to determine whether and to what extent the results

of forensic analyses are inﬂuenced by knowledge regarding the

background of the suspect and the investigator’s theory of the

case). In addition, research on sources of human error should be

closely linked with research conducted to quantify and characterize

the amount of error. Based on the results of these studies, and in

consultation with its advisory board, NIFS should develop stan-

dard operating procedures (that will lay the foundation for model

protocols) to minimize, to the greatest extent reasonably possible,

potential bias and sources of human error in forensic practice.

These standard operating procedures should apply to all forensic

analyses that may be used in litigation.

Recommendation 6:

To facilitate the work of the National Institute of Forensic Science

(NIFS), Congress should authorize and appropriate funds to NIFS

to work with the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST), in conjunction with government laboratories, universi-

ties, and private laboratories, and in consultation with Scientiﬁc

Working Groups, to develop tools for advancing measurement,

validation, reliability, information sharing, and proﬁciency testing

in forensic science and to establish protocols for forensic examina-

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

SUMMARY 25

tions, methods, and practices. Standards should reﬂect best prac-

tices and serve as accreditation tools for laboratories and as guides

for the education, training, and certiﬁcation of professionals. Upon

completion of its work, NIST and its partners should report ﬁnd-

ings and recommendations to NIFS for further dissemination and

implementation.

Quality Control, Assurance, and Improvement

In a ﬁeld such as medical diagnostics, a health care provider typically

can track a patient’s progress to see whether the original diagnosis was

accurate and helpful. For example, widely accepted programs of quality

control ensure timely feedback involving the diagnoses that result from

mammography. Other examples of quality assurance and improvement—

including the development of standardized vocabularies, ontologies, and

scales for interpreting diagnostic tests and developing standards for accredi-

tation of services—pervade diagnostic medicine. This type of systematic and

routine feedback is an essential element of any ﬁeld striving for continuous

improvement. The forensic science disciplines likewise must become a self-

correcting enterprise, developing and implementing feedback loops that

allow the profession to discover past mistakes. A particular need exists for

routine, mandatory proﬁciency testing that emulates a realistic, representa-

tive cross-section of casework, for example, DNA proﬁciency testing.

Recommendation 7:

Laboratory accreditation and individual certiﬁcation of forensic

science professionals should be mandatory, and all forensic science

professionals should have access to a certiﬁcation process. In de-

termining appropriate standards for accreditation and certiﬁcation,

the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) should take into

account established and recognized international standards, such

as those published by the International Organization for Standard-

ization (ISO). No person (public or private) should be allowed to

practice in a forensic science discipline or testify as a forensic sci-

ence professional without certiﬁcation. Certiﬁcation requirements

should include, at a minimum, written examinations, supervised

practice, proﬁciency testing, continuing education, recertiﬁcation

procedures, adherence to a code of ethics, and effective disciplinary

procedures. All laboratories and facilities (public or private) should

be accredited, and all forensic science professionals should be certi-

ﬁed, when eligible, within a time period established by NIFS.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

26 STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

Recommendation 8:

Forensic laboratories should establish routine quality assurance

and quality control procedures to ensure the accuracy of forensic

analyses and the work of forensic practitioners. Quality control

procedures should be designed to identify mistakes, fraud, and

bias; conﬁrm the continued validity and reliability of standard

operating procedures and protocols; ensure that best practices are

being followed; and correct procedures and protocols that are

found to need improvement.

Codes of Ethics

A number of forensic science organizations—such as AAFS, the Mid-

western Association of Forensic Scientists, ASCLD, and NAME—have

adopted codes of ethics. The codes that exist are sometimes comprehensive,

but they vary in content. While there is no reason to doubt that many foren-

sic scientists understand their ethical obligations and practice in an ethical

way, there are no consistent mechanisms for enforcing any of the existing

codes of ethics. Many jurisdictions do not require certiﬁcation in the same

way that, for example, states require lawyers to be licensed. Therefore, few

forensic science practitioners face the threat of ofﬁcial sanctions or loss of

certiﬁcation for serious ethical violations. And it is unclear whether and to

what extent forensic science practitioners are required to adhere to ethics

standards as a condition of employment.

Recommendation 9:

The National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS), in consultation

with its advisory board, should establish a national code of ethics

for all forensic science disciplines and encourage individual societ-

ies to incorporate this national code as part of their professional

code of ethics. Additionally, NIFS should explore mechanisms of

enforcement for those forensic scientists who commit serious ethi-

cal violations. Such a code could be enforced through a certiﬁcation

process for forensic scientists.

Insufﬁcient Education and Training

Forensic science examiners need to understand the principles, practices,

and contexts of scientiﬁc methodology, as well as the distinctive features

of their specialty. Ideally, training should move beyond apprentice-like

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

SUMMARY 27

transmittal of practices to education based on scientiﬁcally valid principles.

In addition to the practical experience and learning acquired during an

internship, a trainee should acquire rigorous interdisciplinary education

and training in the scientiﬁc areas that constitute the basis for the particu-

lar forensic discipline and instruction on how to document and report the

analysis. A trainee also should have working knowledge of basic quanti-

tative calculations, including statistics and probability, as needed for the

applicable discipline.

To correct some of the existing deﬁciencies, it is crucially important to

improve undergraduate and graduate forensic science programs. Legitimiza-

tion of practices in forensic disciplines must be based on established scien-

tiﬁc knowledge, principles, and practices, which are best learned through

formal education. Apprenticeship has a secondary role, and under no cir-

cumstances can it supplant the need for the scientiﬁc basis of education in

and the practice of forensic science.

In addition, lawyers and judges often have insufﬁcient training and

background in scientiﬁc methodology, and they often fail to fully com-

prehend the approaches employed by different forensic science disciplines

and the reliability of forensic science evidence that is offered in trial. Such

training is essential, because any checklist for the admissibility of scientiﬁc

or technical testimony is imperfect. Conformance with items on a checklist

can suggest that testimony is reliable, but it does not guarantee it. Better

connections must be established and promoted between experts in the

forensic science disciplines and law schools, legal scholars, and practitio-

ners. The fruits of any advances in the forensic science disciplines should

be transferred directly to legal scholars and practitioners (including civil

litigators, prosecutors, and criminal defense counsel), federal, state, and

local legislators, members of the judiciary, and law enforcement ofﬁcials,

so that appropriate adjustments can be made in criminal and civil laws and

procedures, model jury instructions, law enforcement practices, litigation

strategies, and judicial decisionmaking. Law schools should enhance this

connection by offering courses in the forensic science disciplines, by offering

credit for forensic science courses taken in other colleges, and by developing

joint degree programs. And judges need to be better educated in forensic

science methodologies and practices.

Recommendation 10:

To attract students in the physical and life sciences to pursue gradu-

ate studies in multidisciplinary ﬁelds critical to forensic science

practice, Congress should authorize and appropriate funds to the

National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) to work with appro-

priate organizations and educational institutions to improve and

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

28 STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

develop graduate education programs designed to cut across orga-

nizational, programmatic, and disciplinary boundaries. To make

these programs appealing to potential students, they must include

attractive scholarship and fellowship offerings. Emphasis should

be placed on developing and improving research methods and

methodologies applicable to forensic science practice and on fund-

ing research programs to attract research universities and students

in ﬁelds relevant to forensic science. NIFS should also support

law school administrators and judicial education organizations in

establishing continuing legal education programs for law students,

practitioners, and judges.

The Medicolegal Death Investigation System

Although steps have been taken to transform the medicolegal death

investigation system, the shortage of resources and lack of consistent edu-

cational and training requirements (particularly in the coroner system)

prevent the system from taking full advantage of tools—such as CT scans

and digital X-rays—that the medical system and other scientiﬁc disciplines

have to offer. In addition, more rigorous efforts are needed in the areas

of accreditation and adherence to standards. Currently, requirements for

practitioners vary from nothing more than age and residency requirements

to certiﬁcation by the American Board of Pathology in forensic pathology.

Funds are needed to assess the medicolegal death investigation system

to determine its status and needs, using as a benchmark the current re-

quirements of NAME relating to professional credentials, standards, and

accreditation. And funds are needed to modernize and improve the medico-

legal death investigation system. As it now stands, medical examiners and

coroners (ME/Cs) are essentially ineligible for direct federal funding and

grants from DOJ, DHS, or the Department of Health and Human Services

(through the National Institutes of Health). The Paul Coverdell National

Forensic Science Improvement Act is the only federal grant program that

names medical examiners and coroners as eligible for grants. However,

ME/Cs must compete with public safety agencies for Coverdell grants; as

a result, the funds available to ME/Cs are inadequate. The simple reality

is that the program has not been sufﬁciently funded to provide signiﬁcant

improvements in ME/C systems.

In addition to direct funding, there are other initiatives that should

be pursued to improve the medicolegal death investigation system. The

Association of American Medical Colleges and other appropriate profes-

Institute of Medicine. 2003. Workshop on the Medicolegal Death Investigation System.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

SUMMARY 29

sional organizations should organize collaborative activities in education,

training, and research to strengthen the relationship between the medical

examiner community and its counterparts in the larger academic medical

community. Medical examiner ofﬁces with training programs afﬁliated with

medical schools should be eligible to compete for funds. Funding should be

available to support pathologists seeking forensic fellowships. In addition,

forensic pathology fellows could be allowed to apply for medical school

loan forgiveness if they stay full time at a medical examiner’s ofﬁce for a

reasonable period of time.

Additionally, NIFS should seek funding from Congress to support the

joint development of programs to include medical examiners and medical

examiner ofﬁces in national disaster planning, preparedness, and conse-

quence management, involving the Centers for Disease Control and Pre-

vention (CDC) and DHS. Uniform statewide and interstate standards of

operation would be needed to assist in the management of cross-juris-

dictional and interstate events. NIFS should support a federal program

underwriting the development of software for use by ME/C systems for the

management of multisite, multiple fatality events.

NIFS should work with groups such as the National Conference of

Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, the American Law Institute, and

NAME, in collaboration with other appropriate professional groups, to up-

date the 1954 Model Post-Mortem Examinations Act and draft legislation

for a modern model death investigation code. An improved code might, for

example, include the elements of a competent medical death investigation

system and clarify the jurisdiction of the medical examiner with respect to

organ donation.

The foregoing ideas must be developed further before any concrete

plans can be pursued. There are, however, a number of speciﬁc recom-

mendations, which, if adopted, will help to modernize and improve the

medicolegal death investigation system. These recommendations deserve

the immediate attention of Congress and NIFS.

Recommendation 11:

To improve medicolegal death investigation:

(a) Congress should authorize and appropriate incentive funds

to the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) for

allocation to states and jurisdictions to establish medical

examiner systems, with the goal of replacing and eventu-

ally eliminating existing coroner systems. Funds are needed

to build regional medical examiner ofﬁces, secure neces-

sary equipment, improve administration, and ensure the

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

30 STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

education, training, and stafﬁng of medical examiner of-

ﬁces. Funding could also be used to help current medical

examiner systems modernize their facilities to meet current

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-recommended

autopsy safety requirements.

(b) Congress should appropriate resources to the National

Institutes of Health (NIH) and NIFS, jointly, to support

research, education, and training in forensic pathology.

NIH, with NIFS participation, or NIFS in collaboration

with content experts, should establish a study section to

establish goals, to review and evaluate proposals in these

areas, and to allocate funding for collaborative research

to be conducted by medical examiner ofﬁces and medical

universities. In addition, funding, in the form of medical

student loan forgiveness and/or fellowship support, should

be made available to pathology residents who choose fo-

rensic pathology as their specialty.

of Medical Examiners, the American Board of Medicolegal

Death Investigators, and other appropriate professional

organizations, should establish a Scientiﬁc Working Group

(SWG) for forensic pathology and medicolegal death inves-

tigation. The SWG should develop and promote standards

for best practices, administration, stafﬁng, education, train-

ing, and continuing education for competent death scene

investigation and postmortem examinations. Best practices

should include the utilization of new technologies such as

laboratory testing for the molecular basis of diseases and

the implementation of specialized imaging techniques.

(d) All medical examiner ofﬁces should be accredited pursu-

ant to NIFS-endorsed standards within a timeframe to be

established by NIFS.

(e) All federal funding should be restricted to accredited of-

ﬁces that meet NIFS-endorsed standards or that demon-

strate signiﬁcant and measurable progress in achieving

accreditation within prescribed deadlines.

(f) All medicolegal autopsies should be performed or super-

vised by a board certiﬁed forensic pathologist. This re-

quirement should take effect within a timeframe to be

established by NIFS, following consultation with govern-

ing state institutions.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

SUMMARY 31

AFIS and Database Interoperability

Great improvement is necessary in AFIS interoperability. Crimes may

go unsolved today simply because it is not possible for investigating agen-

cies to search across all the databases that might hold a suspect’s ﬁnger-

prints or that may contain a match for an unidentiﬁed latent print from

a crime scene. It is also possible that some individuals have been wrongly

convicted because of the limitations of ﬁngerprint searches.

At present, serious practical problems pose obstacles to the achievement

of nationwide AFIS interoperability. These problems include convincing

AFIS equipment vendors to cooperate and collaborate with the law en-

forcement community and researchers to create and use baseline standards

for sharing ﬁngerprint data and create a common interface. Second, law

enforcement agencies lack the resources needed to transition to interoper-

able AFIS implementations. Third, coordinated jurisdictional agreements

and public policies are needed to allow law enforcement agencies to share

ﬁngerprint data more broadly.

Given the disparity in resources and information technology expertise

available to local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, the rela-

tively slow pace of interoperability efforts to date, and the potential gains

from increased AFIS interoperability, the committee believes that a broad-

based emphasis on achieving nationwide ﬁngerprint data interoperability

is needed.

Recommendation 12:

Congress should authorize and appropriate funds for the National

Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) to launch a new broad-based

effort to achieve nationwide ﬁngerprint data interoperability. To

that end, NIFS should convene a task force comprising relevant

experts from the National Institute of Standards and Technology

and the major law enforcement agencies (including representatives

from the local, state, federal, and, perhaps, international levels) and

industry, as appropriate, to develop:

(a) standards for representing and communicating image and

minutiae data among Automated Fingerprint Identiﬁca-

tion Systems. Common data standards would facilitate

the sharing of ﬁngerprint data among law enforcement

agencies at the local, state, federal, and even international

levels, which could result in more solved crimes, fewer

wrongful identiﬁcations, and greater efﬁciency with respect

to ﬁngerprint searches; and

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

32 STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

(b) baseline standards—to be used with computer algorithms—

to map, record, and recognize features in ﬁngerprint images,

and a research agenda for the continued improvement,

reﬁnement, and characterization of the accuracy of these

algorithms (including quantiﬁcation of error rates).

These steps toward AFIS interoperability must be accompanied by fed-

eral, state, and local funds to support jurisdictions in upgrading, operating,

and ensuring the integrity and security of their systems; retraining current

staff; and training new ﬁngerprint examiners to gain the desired beneﬁts

of true interoperability. Additionally, greater scientiﬁc beneﬁts can be real-

ized through the availability of ﬁngerprint data or databases for research

purposes (using, of course, all the modern security and privacy protections

available to scientists when working with such data). Once created, NIFS

might also be tasked with the maintenance and periodic review of the new

standards and procedures.

Forensic Science Disciplines and Homeland Security

Good forensic science and medical examiner practices are of clear value

from a homeland security perspective, because of their roles in bringing

criminals to justice and in dealing with the effects of natural and human-

made mass disasters. Forensic science techniques (e.g., the evaluation of

DNA fragments) enable more thorough investigations of crime scenes that

have been damaged physically. Routine and trustworthy collection of digital

evidence, and improved techniques and timeliness for its analysis, can be of

great potential value in identifying terrorist activity. Therefore, the foren-

sic science community has a role to play in homeland security. However,

to capitalize on this potential, the forensic science and medical examiner

communities must be well interfaced with homeland security efforts, so

that they can contribute when needed. To be successful, this interface will

require the establishment of good working relationships between federal,

state, and local jurisdictions, the creation of strong security programs to

protect data transmittals between jurisdictions, the development of addi-

tional training for forensic scientists and crime scene investigators, and the

promulgation of contingency plans that will promote efﬁcient team efforts

on demand. Policy issues relating to the enforcement of homeland security

are not within the scope of the committee’s charge and, thus, are beyond the

scope of the report. It can hardly be doubted, however, that improvements

in the forensic science community and medical examiner system could

greatly enhance the capabilities of homeland security.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

SUMMARY 33

Recommendation 13:

Congress should provide funding to the National Institute of Fo-

rensic Science (NIFS) to prepare, in conjunction with the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention and the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, forensic scientists and crime scene investigators for

their potential roles in managing and analyzing evidence from

events that affect homeland security, so that maximum evidentiary

value is preserved from these unusual circumstances and the safety

of these personnel is guarded. This preparation also should include

planning and preparedness (to include exercises) for the interoper-

ability of local forensic personnel with federal counterterrorism

organizations.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

Introduction

The world of crime is a complex place. Crime takes place in the work-

place, schools, homes, places of business, motor vehicles, on the streets,

and, increasingly, on the Internet. Crimes are committed at all hours of

the day and night and in all regions of the country, in rural, suburban, and

urban environments. In many cases, a weapon is used, such as a handgun,

knife, or blunt object. Sometimes the perpetrator is under the inﬂuence of

alcohol or illicit drugs. In other cases, no one is physically hurt, but prop-

erty is damaged or stolen—for example, when burglary, theft, and motor

vehicle theft occur. In recent years, information technology has provided

the opportunity for identity theft and other types of cybercrime. A crime

scene often is rich in information that reveals the nature of the criminal ac-

tivity and the identities of those persons involved. Perpetrators and victims

may leave behind blood, saliva, skin cells, hair, ﬁngerprints, footprints, tire

prints, clothing ﬁbers, digital and photographic images, audio data, hand-

writing, and the residual effects and debris of arson, gunshots, and unlawful

entry. Some crimes transcend borders, such as those involving homeland

security, for which forensic evidence can be gathered.

Crime scene investigators, with varying levels of training and experi-

ence, search for and collect evidence at the scene, preserve and secure

it in tamper-evident packaging, label it, and send it to an appropriate

agency—normally a crime laboratory, where it may be analyzed by forensic

examiners. If a death was sudden, unexpected, or resulted from violence, a

medicolegal investigator (e.g., coroner, medical examiner, forensic patholo-

gist, physician’s assistant) will be responsible for determining whether a

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

36 STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

homicide, suicide, or accident occurred and will certify the cause and man-

ner of death.

Crime scene evidence moves through a chain of custody in which, de-

pending on their physical characteristics (e.g., blood, ﬁber, handwriting),

samples are analyzed according to any of a number of analytical protocols,

and results are reported to law enforcement and court ofﬁcials. When

evidence is analyzed, typically forensic science “attempts to uncover the

actions or happenings of an event . . . by way of (1) identiﬁcation (categori-

zation), (2) individualization, (3) association, and (4) reconstruction.”

Evi-

dence also is analyzed for the purpose of excluding individuals or sources.

Not all forensic services are performed in traditional crime laboratories

by trained forensic scientists. Some forensic tests might be conducted by

a sworn law enforcement ofﬁcer with no scientiﬁc training or credentials,

other than experience. In smaller jurisdictions, members of the local police

or sheriff’s department might conduct the analyses of evidence, such as

latent print examinations and footwear comparisons. In the United States,

if evidence is sent to a crime laboratory, that facility might be publicly or

privately operated, although private laboratories typically do not visit crime

scenes to collect evidence or serve as the ﬁrst recipient of physical evidence.

Public crime laboratories are organized at the city, county, state, or federal

level. A law enforcement agency that does not operate its own crime labo-

ratory typically has access to a higher-level laboratory (e.g., at the state or

county level) or a private laboratory for analysis of evidence.

According to a 2005 census by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS),

389 publicly funded forensic crime laboratories were operating in the

United States in 2005: These included 210 state or regional laboratories, 84

county laboratories, 62 municipal laboratories, and 33 federal laboratories,

and they received evidence from nearly 2.7 million criminal cases

in 2005.

These laboratories are staffed by individuals with a wide range of training

and expertise, from scientists with Ph.D.s to technicians who have been

trained largely on the job. No data are available on the size and depth of

the private forensic laboratories, except for private DNA laboratories.

In general, a traditional crime laboratory has been deﬁned as constitut-

ing “a single laboratory or system comprised of scientists analyzing evidence

K. I