Wrap Up: How NAS Recommendations 6, 7, 8, and 9 Can Be Used to Fix Forensic Science

It’s been a busy week here on the site and we’ve covered a lot of ground. I have talked a lot about what is wrong with the purported leadership of forensic science and what is wrong with the way Congress wants to fix forensic science. I have probably also given people the impression that the NAS Report is the only viable solution to cure the ills of forensic science and that forensic science professional organizations should be left out of the picture completely. That is not the case. So today we’re going to talk about who should be involved in reforming forensic science, including those who want to represent forensic science and those who should represent forensic science.

The Recommendations

Once again, those NAS Recommendations for this week are:

• Recommendation 6: Establish guidelines for accreditation and certification of laboratories and practitioners.
• Recommendation 7: Make accreditation of laboratories and certification of practitioners mandatory.
• Recommendation 8: Labs should establish routine QA and QC measures to ensure accuracy and reliability.
• Recommendation 9: Establish a national code of ethics for forensic scientists.

These recommendations are crucial to making it easy for crime labs and forensic scientists to understand and follow rules and regulations to make sure everyone is performing at the level necessary to ensure that we aren’t sending the innocent to prison or letting the guilty go free. That’s it. At the end of the day that’s what is important.

Accreditation to make sure you’re following every procedure no matter how mundane. Certification to make sure you know how to do every aspect of everything you do no matter how simple each task seems to be. Making sure there are QA and QC measures in place to make sure you can still hit the same mark every time. And making sure there is a code of ethics that reminds you of the gravity and importance of what it is that you do every day.

Some in the forensic science community complain that this is too much, that it calls for too much intrusion into how they do their jobs, or that it is the result of people who don’t understand forensic science trying to stick their noses in where they don’t belong. To those people I say, think about this for a minute:

It requires more government certification to drive a car than it does to practice forensic science. Attorneys and doctors have to pass licensing exams to be able to do their jobs. We do not. Realtors have to pass licensing exams. We do not. People who sell car insurance have to pass licensing exams. We do not. What is it about the fact that you are sending people to prison and death row that you think should exempt you from proving that you know how to do your job?

Anyone who knows me well knows that I am not soft-hearted when it comes to the subjects of crime and punishment or the death penalty. Which is why I want to make damn sure that when a sentence is carried out that it is being carried out on the person who actually committed the crime. Part of that is making sure that crime labs are running well and forensic scientists are competent and practicing good science.

The NAS Report: It Is What It Is. And It’s Not That Bad

I know that to some I have come across as being absolutely in love with the NAS Report and its recommendations and that I think it should be implemented without question. That’s really not true. If you’ve read my posts on Recommendation 4 and Recommendation 5 you know that.

I do think, as I’ve stated previously, that the NAS Committee gave forensic science and forensic scientists the benefit of the doubt. Instead of labeling us as overburdened and overworked they could have easily condemned us as deeply flawed and malicious in light of the convoy of scandals that stream across televisions and newspapers around the country seemingly without interruption.

The NAS Committee spent a lot of time and energy (and taxpayer dollars) trying to come up with recommendations to fix the forensic science system in the United States. What a lot of forensic scientists and others seem to lose sight of is that the purpose of this was not to do this for the sake of forensic scientists, but for the citizens of the United States. You know, the people who keep getting put in prison for crimes they didn’t commit while the criminals who did commit the crimes are still roaming around committing more crimes against other innocent citizens.

The Draft Legislation and “Qualified Professional Organizations”

The Draft Legislation released on May 5, 2010 would be far too flawed to be introduced in its current form simply on the basis that it puts the unpalatable Forensic Science Commission in the Department of Justice (DOJ) which has already proven through its own management choices that it can’t handle the responsibility.

But there is the much bigger question of turning everything over the the “qualified professional organizations” that the staffers of the Senate Judiciary Committee seem to think they have discovered in the self-certifying leadership of the American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD), their accrediting body ASCLD/LAB, and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS).

Since the “qualified professional organizations” the staffer from the Senate Judiciary Committee who wrote the Draft Legislation met with were ASCLD, ASCLD/LAB, and AAFS who were given the dominant voice as representatives of the CFSO, it can be assumed that he meant these flawed organizations when he proposed turning everything over to them in his Draft Legislation. This is unacceptable.

The staffer who created the Draft Legislation probably thought, and rightfully so, that a group calling themselves the “American Society of Crime Lab Directors” would know something about the needs of forensic science. In fact, just because someone sits within spitting distance of where forensic science is being practiced, that does not qualify them as a forensic scientist or impart any knowledge unto them as to what the needs of forensic science are.

However, forensic scientists do need to be included in forensic science reform. But organizations such as ASCLD and ASCLD/LAB do not represent forensic scientists and have already shown that they can’t even carry out their own missions.

So… What Should Be Done?

First, I would urge whoever is about to introduce the Draft Legislation to slow down and reconsider what they are doing. They are proposing to

• Create the Forensic Science Commission, an unstable group of political appointees. The Commission would then be…
• Housed in the DOJ, which is the one place the NAS Committee went to great lengths to say it should NOT go and which also has already established a questionable background with respect how it deals with forensic reform. The Commission would then delegate decision making to…
• “Qualified professional organizations”, by which they mean ASCLD, ASCLD/LAB, and others who have questionable leadership and can’t even carry out their own missions.

This legislation needs to be reconsidered and redrafted to more adequately reflect the needs of the country instead of the desires of a few groups who have benefited from the current broken system. Forensic reform should include carefully considered input from all stakeholders in forensic science.

Forensic scientists should, naturally, be included. But they should be real forensic science leaders, not ASCLD or ASCLD/LAB. The real leaders of forensic science are people who practice their science well and work to advance their field and keep it honest.

The real leaders of forensic science are people like Robert Garrett and the International Association for Identification (IAI). The IAI is a member of the CFSO, but has a much different outlook and reputation than the other member organizations.

As then-president of the IAI, Robert Garrett and his organization offered a bold and refreshing response to the NAS Committee’s recommendations. The IAI essentially said, “Let’s do it” because they believe their science can stand on its own.

On his website, Robert Garrett has the statement, “The Truth is not a matter of opinion.” That is the type of leadership the world of forensic science needs. Not unjustified egos wrapped around civil service promotions.

Real leaders in forensic science are also people like forensic scientists who work in their labs and also serve on committees and boards in real professional associations like the IAI, the Society of Forensic Toxicology (SOFT), the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners (AFTE; full disclosure: I am a member), the Scientific Working Groups (SWG, pronounced “swig”) and other organizations that represent practicing forensic scientists.

Forensic science may not be perfect at the moment, but the people who are going to help it get there are the people like those I just mentioned; not ASCLD, ASCLD/LAB, or similar organizations.

They need us, the forensic scientists- not ASCLD and similar organizations- to speak for forensic science because we are the experts. We are the people who work in the field and know what the needs of forensic science are. We are the people who have been trying to warn those in ASCLD and ASCLD/LAB of what is wrong with forensic science and what needs to be done.

I offer this caveat to those groups that represent practicing forensic scientists: you need to look to the IAI’s response to the NAS Committee’s recommendations when considering your own. Remember: your science can stand on its own.

Forensic reform should also include carefully considered input from everyone who has a stake in forensic science. Not just forensic scientists, law enforcement and prosecutors but defense attorneys, victim’s rights groups, and prisoner’s rights groups as well. This system needs checks and balances to function properly, just like any other.

Defense attorneys and advocacy groups help to provide those checks and balances and they should be included in shaping forensic reform on an ongoing basis. It does not mean that everything should be turned over to them. But they should have a meaningful role on an ongoing basis to help shape forensic reform. They represent the interests of those who are at the mercy of forensic science and the criminal justice system. They are the best representatives for those who are affected the most by forensic science.

The staffers who created the Draft Legislation will say they did get input from other groups (defense attorneys, advocacy groups, etc.), but they obviously did not take that input into consideration. The fact that those who wrote this Draft Legislation do not have a clear view into the character of those to whom they would entrust forensic reform for the nation suggests that they have not given this topic due consideration.

Those staffers also have obviously not taken the recommendations of the NAS Report into consideration. On page 17 of the report the NAS Committee essentially says, “Please, for the love of God, do NOT give it to the DOJ.” But the first thing this Draft Legislation does is hand the reigns over to the DOJ to then delegate away all decisions to groups like ASCLD and ASCLD/LAB.

So stand up and make your voice heard, or let ASCLD and other people who have no idea what you do every day and what the issues really are in forensic science decide how forensic science and your job will be defined in the very near future. If you don’t make your voice heard now, don’t complain when Congress does something you don’t like and can’t change.

See all NAS posts.