From Iain McKie re: Glenn's article in last week's Detail

[Kasey Wertheim]

Response of a layperson
by Iain McKie

Following on from Glenn’s excellent article in last week’s detail outlining his frustrations at the often unsupported and ‘unscientific’ criticism levelled against the forensic sciences in general and fingerprints in particular I thought it might be appropriate to highlight another frustration. That of the ‘victims’ of expert error as we view what at times looks more and more like a ‘tit for tat’ stand off between scientists/lawyers/experts.

Am I alone in viewing this potentially useful debate doing little to encourage a meeting of minds and ultimately understanding and solutions as it becomes ever more strident and sterile?

Instead of trying to develop common ground and isolate and tackle the real issues it can be argued that there are egos and in some cases super egos at play engaged in a game where scoring points becomes more important than the debate itself.

Glenn is right to insist that the critics open their own findings and conclusions to the same scientific analysis they demand of fingerprinting and do not seek to mount unsupported and damning criticism of the forensic sciences that make effective headlines but does little to further science and reliability.

He hits the nail firmly on the head when he states, “What the authors have failed to distinguish and state clearly is that HOW the expert makes the determination is the issue.”

This said efforts must continue to ensure that the scientific foundations of fingerprinting are firmly delineated and that the mantle of infallibility is well and truly laid to rest. Over a hundred years of success in crime prevention and detection does not entitle fingerprinting or any other forensic science to avoid continued scrutiny using modern technology and methods of research or debate arising from evolving political or cultural analysis.

Given the increased interest in the forensic sciences the time has never been better for the coming together of all interested parties in informed, reasoned and positive debate where previous ideas, prejudices and complacency are challenged. Fingerprinting has little to fear from such legitimate challenge.

Glenn of course recognises this when he states, “challenging old dogmatic beliefs and supporting new theories with research and statistics—is wonderful and a great benefit to this discipline.’

Regrettably I see too many examples where the expert response to criticism is insular and reactive aimed at saving face rather than advancing the science and developing training and methodology. As a layperson I feel threatened by this and welcome scientists like Glenn who while reacting in some ways are never the less prepared to take on the critics in objective and scientific debate.

I believe however that there is an additional challenge facing fingerprinting and sadly there is little sign of resolution.
Fingerprinting is anything but an international science. Where is the evidence that there is a move towards a world community of fingerprint experts all working to the same rules and principles and united through their science and compatible training, practice and procedures?


Regulation, supervision and control of experts is organised on a national basis in some countries while others favour a more regional or area structure. Control and supervision is sometimes in the hands of the Police service but often scientists themselves are in charge and managers can be police, experts or laypersons.

Some practice a quantative as opposed to a qualitative approach to identification and even those who state they are practising the same approach appear to operate differently.

It is partly because of these structural differences that practitioner error is such a political and practical issue and organisations like SCRO are able to operate unhindered. Just how much damage is being caused as they are allowed to maintain their position that fingerprint identification is not a science but part art and part opinion? How long before your critics begin to exploit these vulnerabilities and courts begin to take cognisance of them?

Glenn concludes those who are prepared to be objective “….. will find a new generation of scientifically gifted and objective scientists, skilled at what we do, but interested in discovering new ways to improve it.”

While that has often been my experience and I continue to believe fingerprint identification to be a major crime prevention and detection tool it is a fact that in many ways your profession is in a catch up phase after a 100 years of ‘enjoying’ the mantle of infallibility. Much remains to be done and ignoring the critics and failing to acknowledge the international aspects of your science is a dangerous policy that could negate much of the valuable development work being undertaken.

[g.]

Well said Iain, and I am glad you know me well enough to know that I am very critical of some of the areas where we need more research and standards (training, methodolgy/sufficiency, tolerance, distortion, etc.).

I felt I needed to write a response to the authors of that article, because though they are critics and bring up these issues (and yes we need to address and listen to them) THEY aren't DOING anything.

They aren't conducting studies. They aren't sponsoring research. They aren't offering alternative methods and testing them. They aren't offering grant money to do the research. They simply aren't doing anything other than sitting in lofty towers and casting stones. I would fall out of my chair if Saks called me up and offered me $1000 stipend from his speaking fees/University/expert fees etc. to conduct research. And when we experts do perform research (as in forensic document exams or as we are starting to in latent prints), they bash it, or misuse the data to continue their quest.

I want to engage in real debate and real research with actual scientists that want to solve the problems, address the issues and better the profession:

Prof. Christophe Champod, Dr. David Stoney, Dr. Itiel Dror...these guys are doing research (or have done research) and want to better the profession.

Anyway, good comments and yes there is still a lot and has been a lot of digging our heels in and drawing a line in the sand. I felt this needed a response just because there were inaccuracies and data of misinformation in this international science article.

I think drawing a line in the sand may be warranted at times, while sticking our heads in the sand (which is probably more of what you are referring to) we should NEVER do.

g.