CLPEX Chat Board

josher89 wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 12:31 pm. . . . . They are applying a laboratory standard to disciplines that fall better under an inspection than a testing environment. ARG!

My cynical observation is that policy makers seem to think all science is the same. The fact is that all science is NOT the same. There are "exact sciences" in which measurement is critical (astronomy, chemistry, physics, etc., and please don't be pedantic and tell me "but none of those are exact"). There are "descriptive sciences" in which descriptions are critical and measurements are less important (zoology, for example, or ornithology -- how can you define the difference between a mockingbird and a cardinal using statistics without description?) And there are "applied sciences" in which we solve real world problems using a version of "the scientific method."

Carl Hempel defined science as the application of validated natural laws to provide explanations and make predictions. That, my friends, is exactly what we do as fingerprint experts. We apply the "laws" of biological uniqueness (formation of friction skin, morphology of friction skin, etc.) through an understanding of biology, not of statistics, and we apply the "law" of reproducibility in understanding the transfer of some part of that uniqueness in every touch when a medium is present to record that transfer. It may not be "exact" and it may be largely subjective, but neither of those descriptors means that we are inaccurate or unreliable. Perfect, no. But accurate and reliable, yes!

Our quandary right now is that the academicians have horned in as "experts" in applied science when, in fact, the are stepping outside their roles as theoretical scientists who practice and teach in academia. They seem to have partnered up with the defense community, which has largely always been critical of forensic science. As practitioners of applied science, our credentials have lost value relative to theirs in the eyes of the lawyers and officials who are currently directing and controlling our future.

I'm pretty sure the long term implication of our current predicament is that we simply must adopt a degree of statistical analysis that is unwarranted in the actual practice of fingerprint comparison. I don't like it, but there it is. We are being directed by non-practitioners over whom we have little power.

Cynical. That's me.

--on soapbox--

ANAB doesn't care about your comments for this draft; they adopted it, without any changes, effective July 2020.

Good on them for giving the appearances that they actually care about their customers. We had our concerns and submitted several comments. We were granted a phone call from one of the accreditation managers who basically said "thanks for trying out, but you didn't make the team".

I guess when you're only one of two dogs in the show, you're able to do pretty much what you want.

They did the same thing for the 17025 program that causing quite a stir amongst those labs that perform testing. For chemistry standards, there is now a requirement to procure them from a particular lab that has a particular accreditation. Oh, guess what? ANAB is the only one that accredits to that particular standard and there is really only one or two labs that hold that accreditation. So, lets force you to purchase your standards from one lab so they can charge you a ridiculous amount (we're talking over 1000% more cost-wise for those standards) and we're making bank both ways.

--off soapbox--

Same thing with PT requirements. At least one external for each sub-discipline every year at every location . We have 21 digital evidence analysts throughout the country, many of them at single-person shops. Guess what, they would have to do external PT's every year, regardless of the fact that they operate under exactly the same quality system. Do PT providers pay commissions??? That would be an unreasonable financial burden on any lab in the same situation. Yeah, we are changing to a different accrediting body, and I'm in the wrong line of work.

josher89 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:59 am
. . . . . So, lets force you to purchase your standards from one lab so they can charge you a ridiculous amount . . . . .

--off soapbox--

ASTM Committee E30 approached SWGFAST about 20 years ago with a proposition. E30 publishes standards and sells them, as you said, at a ridiculous amount. They wanted SWGFAST to give them the fingerprint guidelines so they could publish them and sell them as standards. SWGFAST voted unanimously NO!!! for two reasons: 1. SWGFAST wanted to establish guidelines as voluntary best practices, not standards as mandates to cram down peoples' throats; and 2. SWGFAST thought it was wrong to force somebody to pay for the privilege of being forced to do something that may or may not even have been right for their situation in the first place.

The times, they are a changin'