Are we scientists?

[David L. Grieve]

Pat, as I am sure you remember first hand, Ferrier was a cop with an agenda. The Brits had created a system to be admired, but for the first three years, few did. The 1904 World's Fair provided the platform for getting the rest of the world to beat a path to their door. So with the Diamond Jubilee jewels on display, the UK promised to provide their own security. Ferrier even had the title as chief of security but his real goal was to train those of us less fortunate. I happened to know the youngest son of Micheal Evans, the head of Chicago PD's anthropometric unit. You see, he had just convinced the city to pay a king's ransom for a bunch of brass measuring tools from France. Emmett and I were pretty much skeptics of what Ferrier was selling, but, scientist or not, he was mighty convincing. Too bad no one from NAS was there.

Old Mike, he had an open mind. So when it was all over, he took the heat from the city fathers when he decided fingerprints were the way to go. Emmett was so proud of his dad that he applied to work for the city. Michael made sure that the city hired some dude from New York who had screwed up his conversion to Henry to head the civil service panel to rate the applicants for the position. Emmett was not in any real danger since this Dad made sure the panel was housed and fed very well.

I went up to Chicago from time to time to sit in on discussions about fingerprints. There was a woman that was regularly present, a nice lady named Mary Holland. I learned a great deal from her. She was not a scientist either. But when a case came along testing fingerprints, I was there when the Illinois Supreme Court decided fingerprints were reliable, even when circumstances presented fingerprint evidence as the only means of linking a suspect to the scene. That decision addressed many of the elements talked about today, and I found the court's reasoning about as solid as it gets. And that was many years before the founding of the NAS.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Actually, before John dropped in to teach us about fingerprints, an old friend, Tom Taylor, suggested the idea. Trouble was, the boss. Old "H.B." James was a skeptic and put the kibosh on the whole idea. I had kind of forgotten about it. That was when John rekindled our interest. So John got the credit and Tom was forgotten. I never did know what "H.B." stood for.

Funny you should mention Mary. I heard you two dated for a while until she got a crush on the teacher.

[printlady]

So, Simon Cole is in the news again...

Simon Cole explains that fingerprints are not unique and therefore cannot be individualised.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the NAS report come to the opposite conclusion? I think the man is becoming less credible with every publication. Does Simon Cole qualify as a scientist? I thought he was a historian.

After the lecture Professor Mariana Valverde comments that fingerprint experts are low status people and have a simplified view of laws and science as opposed to more qualified and educated people.

The arrogance of some of these people is astounding. Being a low status person with a simplified view of the world, I guess I need to learn my place!

Dr. Dror said: Do not think that when you score 'X' on the objectivity scale you get the title of 'scientist', because there is no scale, and even if there was one, then there is no 'X' score on it to qualify anyone as a scientist.

It would seem that no matter what research is conducted or published much of the academic world will be unwilling to accept forensics as science. Dr. Dror’s statement may be true, but I admit that I sometimes feel like we are butting our heads against a very old, powerful brick wall. How do we combat such prejudice?

[briano]

I sent the distinguished Professor an e-mail asking her what she meant by her comments. We'll see if she answers me.
If it wasn't for no class, I wouldn't have any at all.

[David L. Grieve]

Simple Simon has steadily impressed folks who don't know a fingerprint from a knitting needle. But, once again, what Simon calls himself or what others call him doesn't amount to a hill of beans. A New York judge listened patiently and declared Simon the master of junk science. When he has been alllowed to testify, one time I think, Simon completely underwhelmed the jury. Come of thing of it, Simon isn't a very good tug boat pilot. His antics are irriatating to those of us who really want justice, but seem to get him pay raises at UC Berkley. Enough said.

[Gerald Clough]

So, Simon Cole is in the news again...

Simon Cole explains that fingerprints are not unique and therefore cannot be individualised.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the NAS report come to the opposite conclusion? I think the man is becoming less credible with every publication. Does Simon Cole qualify as a scientist? I thought he was a historian.

He is correct, if the test is a theory proven to a scientific certainty. There's a real bad habit of pretending that Cole is a crank or is ignorant. He is a bit of both, but not in the way folks often imagine, and I have to think it's something of a willful ignorance. The latent print examination conclusion of Individualization is and can only be a statement that the examiner has observed and applied personal experience and the common experience to form a belief that, if one could know to a certainty the source of the latent, it would be the named individual. That is not a statement that the examiner has established the factual source to a scientific proof standard. That, in fact, cannot be done. The willful ignorance is the pretense that it is some sort of revelation in the legal realm that the LPE conclusion is not a statement of proven certainty.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that Cole knows quite well what the conclusion means but that he has a poor understanding of the role of expert evidence in law of just doesn't agree with that role. I suspect he objects to juries being swayed by less than scientific proof but entirely fails to think about the consequences of requiring scientific certainty as evidence. That consequence would be that no opinion evidence would ever be admitted, only observations. And since little expertise is required to observe, all sorts of improper inference would be drawn from it. That is, I believe, the true underlying reason he never gets any traction in court. He either doesn't know what evidence is or has decided he should be the one to decide what it is, generations of judges being misguided. He wants very badly to testify behind the examiner to explain that the jury shouldn't take the examiner's conclusion as fact and that the examiner shouldn't form such a belief in what reality is likely to be, because dumb ole lawyers can't handle the issue. It's plain old academic hubris, coupled with the notoriety of "exploding the myth of fingerprints."

Is he a scientist? If you can answer that one, you can answer the thread subject question. Doesn't matter. But I would say he falls far short of X on the Objectivity Scale.

And the NAS contributors did not come to conclude that he's wrong. First, they weren't pretending to settle such issues and merely suggest areas that need attention. If they could have made that kind of finding, they wouldn't have been calling for research, since the ultimate question would already have been proven. Second, they aren't interested in futile inquiry that's not about their interest, which is how forensic experts develop and deliver evidence.

[Michele]

I’ve wanted to reply to several items but can’t seem to pin down which is most important to me. I’ll respond to “Why does it matter?” and “It only matters what the judge thinks”.

Even though I wouldn’t say I’m a scientist, I still arrive at my conclusion in a scientific manner. I think it matters because conclusions arrived at in a scientific manner result in better conclusions (better in my opinion meaning valid, which is different than being accurate). Scientific conclusions are valued more because they have valid justification behind them (versus conclusions that are justified by the amount of training, experience, or the confidence level of the examiner).

In addition, scientific conclusions are more likely to not be influenced by bias because the practitioner is impartial to the results. If your goal is to ID the suspect (or get the bad guy) then you’re more likely to push the limits and arrive at conclusions that are possible but maybe not the only plausible conclusion (by making it fit).

If you look at the past errors that have occurred, the erroneous conclusion is usually missing some vital element of science. I think that using scientific protocols diminishes the probability of errors occurring.

Just my opinion,

[16_Points]

I wholeheartedly echo g's comments. Well stated. If I were to tackle the question, I would start by reminding everyone that "science" is really a philosophical idea (perhaps it seems a bit strange). Science is more about "how" we do something rather than "what" we do. It is indeed about scientific method, though I suspect the concept of scientific method is poorly understood (even by scientists).

First and foremost is the idea that science is based upon carefully recorded observations (data) which support or refute a hypothesis or conclusion. Fingerprint examiners purport to rely on their experience examining marks to substantiate source attributions (IDs). However, critics like Cole point out that we do not have any documented records that make this experience accessible to outside observers (peer review). That criticism is on point. If a scientist makes a claim, say regarding climate change, the scientific community would first ask, "Where is the data that supports this claim?" A response of, "I've been observing climate change for 30 years but didn't record anything except my conclusions." would be dismissed. Producing additional experts who say, "Yes, I've been observing climate events too and concur with these conclusions." is equally incredible. Yet, this is in effect what fingerprint examiners do when they articulate the basis of their conclusions. While this may have been scientifically acceptable 100 years ago, it is no longer reasonable under current scientific standards. Yes, amazingly standards of evidence do change over time.

Are we scientists? Yes and no. Yes to the extent that we participate and employ scientific practices such as the documentation described above. No to the extent that we do not perform critical tasks essential to all scientific enterprises. So really, the choice is yours as to whether or not you are a scientist.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Even though I wouldn’t say I’m a scientist, I still arrive at my conclusion in a scientific manner.

Okay, Michele, you've sort of lost me on this one. If you understand science (and you do), if you arrive at your conclusions in a "scientific manner," and if your conclusions are "scientific conclusions," why would you not say that you are a scientist? Are you saying that you are a technician, but you conduct your examinations in a "scientific manner" so they are more reliable? You go on to say that,

If you look at the past errors that have occurred, the erroneous conclusion is usually missing some vital element of science. I think that using scientific protocols diminishes the probability of errors occurring.

Then isn't this an issue of semantics? If a person uses scientific protocols in a scientific manner to reach a scientific conclusion, why would you deny that person is a scientist? Aren't you saying that it is okay to be a technician as long as you use valid, scientific protocols?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

There's a real bad habit of pretending that Cole is a crank or is ignorant.

I hate that we use the word "fingerprint" in two drastically different ways. We use that word to mean the skin on the tip of a finger, and we also use it to mean the mark left behind when the finger touches something. When Simon Cole says "Fingerprints are not unique and therefore cannot be individualised," is he referring to the skin or to the mark, or both? Is he referring to the clear mark with 50 points or the smudge with only a ridge or two showing? Part of the problem with the emotional battle between the critics and the fingerprint experts is that both sides have resorted to hyperbole. Both sides have also resorted to pulling short sound bites that were mostly wrong and quoting them out of context to make them sound even worse, and then repeating them as if that was all that was said. Stephen Meagher's "zero error rate" was such a sound bite from our side. I have known Simon for several years and have debated him at a couple of IAI Division conferences in formal setting, besides appearing as witnesses on opposite sides in court on a couple of occasions. Simon Cole is not the anti-Christ. I do not agree with Simon in his final conclusion that the use of fingerprint identification should be prohibited in the courtroom until after validation studies are complete and the error rate is known. But I agree with him wholeheartedly in his assertion that it is crucial we do those studies and establish scientifically the reliability and accuracy of our discipline.

Science performed by scientists? Technology performed by technicians? g. and 16_Points say it's a little of both. I believe that may have been what Michele was trying to say, too. I agree.

[L.J.Steele]

Did I miss a link or source for the quotes from Cole and Valverde? Was this from the podcast lecture that was mentioned in the Detail?

If so, it is worth listening to the discussion in context, which talks about why merely saying that "fingerprints are unique and therefore we can reliably individualize" doesn't end the debate. As I recall, NAS talks about the question of reliabily discerning uniqueness, particularly with the quality of evidence one frequently finds at crime scenes and suggest more research in this area.

[pjsalicco]

Are judges scientists? Although they have been given the tasks as the gate keepers determining whether a person is qualified to testify as an expert, is it not upon the judges consideration and subjective judgement that this opinion is rendered? I am not saying that judges are not qualified to determine whether a proposed science has validity, I just wonder on what basis do they do this? Do they have science degrees, or courses in science that enable them to understand the complexities of DNA, fingerprints, bloodspatter.....etc.

[Gerald Clough]

Even though I wouldn’t say I’m a scientist, I still arrive at my conclusion in a scientific manner.

Okay, Michele, you've sort of lost me on this one. If you understand science (and you do), if you arrive at your conclusions in a "scientific manner," and if your conclusions are "scientific conclusions," why would you not say that you are a scientist? Are you saying that you are a technician, but you conduct your examinations in a "scientific manner" so they are more reliable? You go on to say that,

If you look at the past errors that have occurred, the erroneous conclusion is usually missing some vital element of science. I think that using scientific protocols diminishes the probability of errors occurring.

Then isn't this an issue of semantics? If a person uses scientific protocols in a scientific manner to reach a scientific conclusion, why would you deny that person is a scientist? Aren't you saying that it is okay to be a technician as long as you use valid, scientific protocols?

I think that's getting close to the real point. There is indeed a "scientific" mode. I think it could be characterized as beginning with all that can be reliably known at the time, making careful observations while being mindful of factors that can influence perception, and forming a rational opinion of the nature of some reality. When you divert from that, engaging in the exercise without Newton's "standing on the shoulders of giants," without disciplined observation, or leaping to a conclusion that is not rationally justified, you're outside the scientific mode of inquiry. Humans have always engaged in both scientific and unscientific decision making. The humeral theory of medicine assumed a body of imaginary causes. Lacking knowledge to apply to a desire to address ills, theorists went with something that gave them a system of thought that led nowhere useful because the observations were forced to fit the imaginary causes. Concocted "system" has often been substituted for process driven by a chain of knowledge-based observation.

Some scientific inquiry has developed to the point of being able to conclude confident and precise statements of reality. Whether they are later found to be fixed truths or not, they have reached a level of confidence where it's justified to apply that knowledge to real physical problems. Much of physics precisely applies to physical reality under the conditions and within the limits of the problems it addressed. The same principles do not accurately reflect behavior under other conditions. Some scientific inquiry has barely begun and hasn't accumulated enough knowledge to go beyond merely noting a phenomenon. Other scientific inquiry has reached a useful level but has not allowed precise statements of reality. It is at the stage of reasonable belief when there is a need to apply the current state of knowledge to some problem. Across all the legitimate fields of inquiry, there are at any given time efforts are all possible stages of development.

It's impossible to say when some human effort passes from technical development to "science" or even if there's a difference at all. Rarely is there a clear line in any real field of endeavor between empiricism and science. Arguably, if you're using all the available knowledge, making careful observations, and reaching rational conclusions, you're working scientifically, because you're not relying purely on observation but also applying solid knowledge of physical reality. It's a mode of thinking. But it can get tricky when you try to label something "not scientific." People may differ in what they consider valid knowledge upon which to base an inquiry. Research scientists argue such things all the time. People may differ in their confidence that some observations were accurately interpreted. And they can, of course, differ in what they conclude. But they may all be working scientifically. When you don't know enough to state tentative absolute truths, but you have to opine because real data is available and material to a vital question that must be judged, you do that. If the whole process of developing the opinion is scientific and developed to the point that it uses what's known, observes rigorously, and concludes rationally, it is deemed useful in settling the larger issue. If it is not scientific, if it ignores knowledge or there is no knowledge to use, or the observations are corrupt, or the conclusion cannot rationally derive from the knowledge and observations, it won't be found useful.

Michelle's comment about errors is correct. They failed one or more of those three qualifications. But they did not all fail on account of working unscientifically. In general, it is definitely possible to proceed scientifically to an error, because we cannot know the limits of reliable knowledge and can often not observe with absolute accuracy. And some examination errors failed in the rigor of observation. The test of an opinion process is that, when it is applied in a scientific manner, it is highly reliable, which means that someone is justified in joining the opinion of the expert. Latent print examination stands very high in that regard. I think that if because the threshold for reaching a belief is treated so conservatively. It takes quite a significant failure in one of the three parts of scientific process to produce a demonstrable error.

[Gerald Clough]

Are judges scientists? Although they have been given the tasks as the gate keepers determining whether a person is qualified to testify as an expert, is it not upon the judges consideration and subjective judgement that this opinion is rendered? I am not saying that judges are not qualified to determine whether a proposed science has validity, I just wonder on what basis do they do this? Do they have science degrees, or courses in science that enable them to understand the complexities of DNA, fingerprints, bloodspatter.....etc.

The basis for judges deciding validity (really reliability, since validity is something else) is simply that it is their assigned role. What are the alternatives? It's impossible to require judges to be expert practitioners in all the scientific and technical opinion areas that come before them. The only other alternative would be to appoint some grand panel of experts in each field to pass on each opinion offered as evidence, with the court bound to accept it as the only opinion allowed. That's not going to work, either, for all sorts of reasons. The process, then, is that judges judge who is qualified to offer opinion and whether any opinion offered is more likely helpful or confusing. Qualification as an expert is usually not an issue. Few litigants will try to put up an unqualified expert. It's more a judgment of value to the case at trial. Law is not science. Both do deal with testing a hypothesis of reality. But the issues in lawsuits are too urgent to be limited to settlement only when the reality can be ascertained to the degree of proof required to prove a scientific theory. Society must settle the issues, since the alternatives cannot be tolerated. The judge's role might be described as insuring fair argument by applying the law, either by enforcing express definitive rules or by making judgments according to the tests specified by law. If you set scientists to deciding lawsuits and required their results to pass the kind of tests that would get the decision published in a scientific journal, very few suits would ever be decided.

The "qualification" for judges to play the gatekeeper role is not that they are smarter than everyone else, but that they are presumed to be able to decide independent of interest in the outcome. There's an impulse to say about that, "Oh, yeah. Right." But, just as how being on a jury works a real transformation on common citizens, there's weight that settles on you when you take on the judge's robe and makes you take very seriously the power that's been given you. And it's good to remember that judges' actions are much more constrained by law than people tend to think. It feels much more like operating a legal machine than crafting judgments or guessing right. And any number of judges who repeatedly hear cases involving the same expert issues become pretty well educated in those fields.

[Michele]

Pat,

Even though I wouldn’t use the term to describe myself, I’m not against others using it. I have several reasons for not using it for myself.

If I were to say I’m a scientist then some people might assume that all my conclusions are arrived at scientifically. I try but there’s no guarantee that this is true. I personally feel like I’m still learning and some of my conclusions may be more scientific than others. Perhaps I’m using valid principles but there’s a possibility that I’m not. Where are our ‘valid principles’ published? Some of the principles that I (or others use) may not have the validity behind them that they should under the scientific umbrella. When people say they are a scientist, I think the tendency is to put the weight of the conclusion in their title instead of putting the weight where I think it belongs, in the specific situation. I prefer if people look at each situation instead of looking at it in a broad sense. In the broad sense, isn’t everyone a scientist (problem solving and testing to arrive at good conclusions)?

I believe that the best conclusions are found by using scientific protocols. These can be used by technicians or scientists.

Gerald,

What are the three qualifications of science that you are talking about, I think I missed it.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

I believe that the best conclusions are found by using scientific protocols. These can be used by technicians or scientists.

Okay, how about this similar experience.

In 1976, I underwent training and was certified as a Breathalyzer Operator. I could parrot back the chemical names and reactions, but I was no chemist. Nor was I a medical expert who understood the effects of alcohol. Nonetheless, I could testify as a technician as to what exactly I did to run the Breathalyzer test, and to the conclusion that resulted in a decision to charge a driver with DUI (or, as it was called back then, DWI).

If the Breathalyzer results were to be challenged, a chemist (scientist) came to trial to testify to the science behind the Breathalyzer. He outlined the bases for the chemistry and the protocols in operating the instrument. He also testified the the effects of alcohol on the human body. If I had followed the protocols, my results were reliable.

Isn't that about what g. was suggesting in his earlier post? That there is nothing wrong with being fingerprint technician and testifying to what you did? Then, if the opposing side is going to contest the reliability of fingerprint identification, we bring in the scientific expert to testify to the science and protocols?