Intellectual infrastructure: A modest critique of forensic science

摘要

Forensic science serves a critical public need, supports both the conviction of the guilty and the exoneration of the innocent, and has been elevated to celebrity status among professions thanks to television. Across the globe, failures in forensic science resound-the St. Paul Crime Lab in Minnesota and Annie Dookhan in Massachusetts, to name two recent and egregious examples-seemingly with no abatement. The US National Academy of Sciences has produced the latest in a series of excoriating reports and two bills calling for forensic science reform languish in the US government. The Forensic Science Service is gone, for reasons still being debated. With disasters galore and governmental attention, money usually flows to provide activity, if not solutions. Why, then, has forensic science had such difficulty fulfilling its role as an honorable star among scientific professions? Three main obstacles occur to me. The first obstacle is resources, especially education and training, personnel, and funding. Education has made great strides in the last 10 years with accreditation of forensic science programs in the US and the UK. Education, particularly in the US, however, needs to move beyond this initial success. Doctorates in forensic science are needed as mainstays of research, to help fill the research gaps that exist in the literature, and to teach. Training in the profession is a hodgepodge of approaches, content, and standards. While jurisdictions influence processes and, therefore, training, the content is another matter.