"Forensic Science Isn't Science"... thoughts?

[jamily]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... nvict.html

I came across this gem yesterday... wondering how the folks on this chatboard would respond. I'm still cataloging all the responses I'd like to make, but here are a few examples of what you'll get to read:

"Far from an infallible science, forensics is a decades-long experiment in which undertrained lab workers jettison the scientific method in favor of speedy results that fit prosecutors’ hunches... A startling number of forensics analysts are told by prosecutors what they think the result of any given test will be." - what?? I'd like to see his source for this

"No one knows exactly how many people have been wrongly imprisoned—or executed—due to flawed forensics. But the number, most experts agree, is horrifyingly high." - Again, sources? Where is this data coming from? I feel like he's pulling it out of thin air.

There are many other instances like this, but you should read it yourselves and not take my word for it

[Pat]

First, identify all of the individuals using the word "science."

Second, find a single definition of the word that everybody can agree upon.

I think you will find that to be an impossible task. Utterly impossible.

In court, when I am asked if fingerprint identification is "science," I ask to use the easel pad to draw a chart explaining what I am about to answer. On the easel pad, I draw as large a circle as I can and label it "Universe of Science." Inside that large circle, I draw several circles as big as I can make them within the boundaries of the Universe. One of the inner circles is "Exact Sciences," which includes mathematics and, arguably, physics, astronomy, etc. A second inner circle I label "Descriptive Sciences." Inside of that I put, say, ornithology. We identify a bird by its description, but we cannot quantify it in the way we use math. The third circle I label "Applied Sciences," and inside of that I put another smaller circle I call "Forensic Sciences." I point out that those in the sphere of "Exact Sciences" sometimes fail to accept "Applied Sciences" as true science. But in the overall picture, all these fields are scientific to one degree or another. There is no single definition of science, and those in one sphere may disavow those in another sphere. One might argue that in my model, the circles should overlap and intersect, but in court, "K.I.S.S."

Also, keep in mind that in an adversarial system, it is the duty of one "side" to try and raise reasonable doubt about the validity of the other "side." Therein lies another part of the problem.

[Bill Schade]

Hi Pat
Boy, You're really dating yourself when you talk about Easel Pads and markers. Most of todays practitioners have never seen one of those and have probably never used one. And the modern courtroom would come to an abrupt halt as they stopped proceedings to try and find one for your use

Another instructor of our mutual acquaintance (and much prettier than either of us) explains the concept more succinctly:

"....using scientific protocols in practical situations

Either way, I agree we need to be prepared to answer these questions since we have always claimed to be "science"

[josher89]

Bill,

I think if you take a look at the author, and read (or skim them, for that's all their worth) some of his other articles, you'll see an agenda that he isn't trying to hide. My first reaction was to email him and give him my thoughts. After looking for a minute or so on the site for a way to contact him, I lost interest. All too often these articles are published in a non-peer reviewed magazine, simply published to sell to travelers passing the time while in an airline terminal awaiting your flight. I think that because of all of these articles, and our (practitioners) failure to address them, the INCORRECT thought is that these articles are the gospel. But, while I wanted to respond, I realize I'd be mostly trolling the author anyway and my time is too valuable for that.