NAS Recommendation 5: Define the Indefinable, Then Control It Absolutely

The fifth recommendation in the report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) titled “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward” seems to signal the Committee’s realization that there will always be some subjective, human component of forensic science and that fact is scary as hell.

The recommendation is:

• The National Institute of Forensic Science should encourage
• Research programs on human observer bias
• Research programs on sources of human error in forensic examinations
• 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
• Additionally, 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 Standard Operating Procedures should be created 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.

In a nutshell, the recommendation means: study the sources of human bias and why it happens, then set up mechanisms to control it.

Unfortunately, people are human and you have to work with what you’ve got. I’m not sure that this recommendation was intended to be implemented. That list above is taken directly from the language of the recommendation. Look at all that. Somebody went to a lot of trouble to try to figure out how to calculate for and prevent basic human behavior. That level of controlling behavior probably leads to a lot of divorces.

What should happen with this recommendation is it should be printed on one side of a laminated card and handed out to every forensic scientist to be kept on their person and read before they start work every day. On the other side of the card should be a list of the names of people who have been wrongfully imprisoned by sloppy science. Or the names of infamous forensic scientists who have put innocent people in jail.

Obviously, not all forensic scientists are the types who want to feel powerful or please detectives and prosecutors by sending suspects to jail regardless of what the evidence says. But not all forensic scientists are altruistic independents who are ever-mindful that they are working to speak for the evidence, willing to stick their necks out for the truth. For a lot of people, it’s just a job. They have a family and a mortgage and a life that means a lot more to them that whatever it is they do when they walk through the door of that lab every day. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll lie or that they don’t understand that what they do is important. But they won’t fight for anything, either. Or resist. That’s where things get messy. And why people need to make sure they are being vigilant in their work.

There are areas of forensic science that will never be able to be fully automated and will always be done by human forensic examiners. All areas of forensic science are solid and the basic research can and will be done where it hasn’t already. Adequate training, continuing education, transparency, accreditation, certification, and oversight can mitigate the effects of human bias in forensic science. I’ll be talking about that next week.

See all NAS posts.