Strengthening Forensic Science In The United States: A Path Forward

In 2006, Congress appropriated funds to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to thoroughly study the fundamental underpinnings of forensic science and its applications in our criminal justice system. A blue-ribbon NAS panel was formed – including scientists, academics, a retired federal judge, and other notable experts. Over an eighteen-month period, the group held several public hearings and gathered comprehensive research on forensic disciplines. This Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community released its final report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, in February 2009.

The National Academy of Sciences Report

In releasing their report, the co-chairs of the committee emphasized that there was a consistent theme throughout their deliberations. The report says:

"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 community 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 report’s key findings include:

“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 certainly, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source.” (NAS Report, page 7)
"…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…” (NAS Report p 18)
“There are great disparities among existing forensic science operations in federal, state and local law enforcement jurisdictions and agencies…It is clear, however, that any approach to overhauling the existing system needs to address and help minimize the community’s current fragmentation and inconsistent practices.” (NAS Report, page 5-6)
“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.” (NAS Report, page 8)
“A body of research is [also] required to establish the limits and measures of performance and to address the impact of sources of variability and potential bias.” (NAS Report, page S-6)
“…The adversarial process relating to the admission and exclusion of scientific evidence is not suited to the task of finding ’scientific truth‘…Judicial review, by itself, will not cure the infirmities of the forensic science community.” (NAS Report, page 10)