PCAST

[Dr. Borracho]

What's this?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administrati ... ngs/future

[Boyd Baumgartner]

I think if you read the transcripts from the last meeting, it will be pretty obvious.

A couple observations:

First, reading through the transcripts, I found that it was kind of funny, actually. They commend the fingerprint community in a backhanded sort of way by recognizing they are starting to publish studies in real scientific journals peer reviewed by actual scientists.

Secondly, on a more meta note, they're trying to determine the foundational validity of our discipline and in so doing distinguish between objective and subjective methods giving preference to the former. However ultimately determining validity is a subjective endeavor. So ultimately, if the critique is on the methodology being subjective, wouldn't that diminish the critique seeing how they arrived at the findings using the same method?

Lastly, my worst case tin foil hat guess is that they're ultimately going to try and federalize the disciplines by associating accreditation to adherence to OSAC standards and then use the DOJ as some meddling enforcement entity.

[Dr. Borracho]

Is this group saying, then, that "applied science" is not "real science?"

Are they saying that "subjective" is always less accurate and reliable than "objective?"

Do they think that Federal rules governing all practice of forensics, including licensing of scientists, would make forensic science better evidence?

[Boyd Baumgartner]

As William Bruce Cameron said, 'Not everything that counts can be counted and not everything can be counted counts', that basically sums up the problem. And as much as everyone wants to be the one to usher in the 'new paradigm', they can't quite get around this problem. Call it what you want in terms of applied science, special science, etc, but the fundamental shortcomings of comparison sciences are that pattern evidence doesn't compare itself, and value determinations are not solely based on the physical objects but the attitudes that people have about them, so they can be subject to irrationality. (think: stock market)

I think the transcript framed the problem correctly by saying both ends of the spectrum are bad. On one end you have absolute certainty claims which are bad and on the other end you have we don't know how wrong we are which can be bad as well. So, in essence it's a problem of measurement which they identify, both measurement of accuracy and measurement of uncertainty which are obviously related, but not the same thing. I think people have been saying that for quite some time.

The challenge, I believe will come in how the industry chooses to address the problem. Stats don't solve the 'counts/counted' problem, they just systematize error to an unknown degree, which in some regards is progress if you read the transcript like I do. Humans just are more accurate due to the fact that they can perceive things that mere statistical triangulations cannot (see that thread g. and I had about the question mark print), and so it makes sense to provide a technical solution that acts in concert with human decision making. This is known as a 'centaur' in artificial intelligence circles, and it has been found that humans acting with diagnostic AI are more accurate than either acting alone.

I gave a ted talk style talk at last year's IAI (right click, open in new window) about combining social media technologies to develop a unified platform to do work and research from. Overlaying some machine learning on this platform could get us there a lot more quickly than individual stats development could. That's how I'd do it, but what do I know, I'm just some guy on a chatboard that 3 people read...

[Bill Schade]

Make that 4 Boyd.

I'm here reading

[Dr. Borracho]

Let us do a scientific count here: Borracho, Boyd, Bill.

Nope, that's just three.

[Bill Schade]

Steve Everest moderates the board. He reads everything
That makes four

[LEC]

Leamon = Five

[John Vanderkolk]

JohnV=6

[ER]

[Dr. Borracho]

The most cogent comment of the entire presentation was that made by Ms Lewis. Therefor, I am reasonably confident it will be ignored.

[Boyd Baumgartner]

From the call today and the transcript of the last meeting it sounds like the Feds are taking a measure of control as gatekeeper of validity and they're reaching out to the science community more and less towards the professional community. I wonder how this will play with the OSACs and the IAI's special committees? Will those entities need to continue or will they get downsized, reorganized and absorbed by some other entity in the scientific community?

[Dr. Borracho]

IAI Past President Bridget Lewis was the only member of the general audience to get to respond following the PCAST meeting. Ms Lewis voiced the IAI's support of funding for research. She went on to point out that the FBI Academy has withdrawn from its former role as the primary training provider for forensics in general and latent prints in particular. She then urged the PCAST to include with its recommendations for research funding, additional funding for forensic training to educate forensic scientists in the new knowledge to be gained through research. If you would like to add your voice to Ms Lewis's in urging the restoration of federal funding for forensics training, here is the address to which you may write with your comments:

Office of Science and Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
1650 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20504

[Dr. Borracho]

National District Attorneys Association slams President’s Council
of Advisors on Science and Technology report

ARLINGTON, Virginia -- The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) voted
yesterday to release a report highly critical of virtually every forensic discipline used in the
investigation and prosecution of virtually every crime committed in America.
In the report, PCAST advocates that prosecution teams be precluded from using most forensic
evidence in the investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses and that courts reject decades of
scientifically reliable evidence and legal precedent.
The PCAST position is that the forensic science disciplines specializing in the examination of
bitemarks, firearms/toolmarks, complex DNA mixtures, tire-treads, and shoe prints each lack
scientific foundational support and should not be permitted for use in the criminal courtroom.
However, the opinions expressed by PCAST in their report clearly and obviously disregard large
bodies of scientific evidence to the contrary and rely, at times, on unreliable and discredited research.
The forensic science disciplines that the PCAST authors attack are (and have been) reliably used every
day by investigators, prosecutors, and defense attorneys across the United States to aid in both
exonerating the innocent and convicting the guilty.
Critically, because of our system of justice, in each instance that such evidence is used, the process of
presenting and cross examining the forensic evidence is overseen by objectively neutral judges whose
role is to fairly supervise the introduction of evidence into trials and to act as “gatekeepers” to
determine the reliability and admissibility of forensic evidence on a case-by-case basis.
As with all evidence presented in criminal courts, this forensic scientific evidence is subject to crossexamination
as well as evaluation by the Court. Many accrediting bodies consisting of worldrenowned
scientists and highly skilled experts evaluate forensic labs and practitioners, helping to
guarantee that only qualified forensic experts testify to solid forensic facts in our courts.
The PCAST position regarding the use of forensic science is scientifically irresponsible. Adopting any
of their recommendations would have a devastating effect on the ability of law enforcement,
prosecutors and the defense bar, to fully investigate their cases, exclude innocent suspects, implicate
the guilty, and achieve true justice at trial.
NATIONAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
“It is unfortunate that members of PCAST, none of whom are forensic practitioners who have been
trained or tested for competence in the forensic disciplines, ignored vast bodies of research,
validation studies, and scientific literature authored by true subject matter experts,” said NDAA
President Mike Ramos.
Engagement with recognized subject matter experts would have led PCAST to compelling
foundational support for the overall reliability of these forensic sciences. Notwithstanding the lack of
qualifications, PCAST has taken it upon itself to usurp the Constitutional role of the Courts and
decades of legal precedent and insert itself as the final arbiter of the reliability and admissibility of
the information generated through these forensic science disciplines.
According to Ramos, PCAST has determined to throw away and ignore years of settled law and to act
as both judge and jury in urging the exclusion of forensic science disciplines in the courtrooms of our
nation.
The determination of whether scientific evidence is reliable and therefore admissible must remain
with the judiciary -- while the determination of how much weight will be given to any particular piece
of scientific evidence must rightfully remain with the jury.
“NDAA will continue to serve the citizens of this great nation by striving to improve our constitutional
adversarial system of criminal justice and to defend it against those who would seek to undermine
the role of the courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and juries,” Ramos said.
The National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), http://www.ndaa.org, is the largest prosecutor organization in the country,
representing 2,500 elected and appointed District Attorneys across the United States, as well as 40,000 Assistant District
Attorneys.
Contact: Nelson Bunn, Director of Policy and Governmental Affairs, Natio

[Steve Everist]

Steve Everest moderates the board. He reads everything
That makes four

No, just look for typos... like when my name is misspelled.