A work in progress - accreditation of forensic DNA laboratories as a part of the ,,European Forensic Science Area 2020 (EFSA 2020)” concept

Abstract

As 2020 is approaching, various stakeholders and EU Member States are currently implementing some elements of the EFSA2020 concept. EFSA2020 offers Europe the chance to raise the quality level of its forensic science and in doing so, improve the public's confidence in the administration of justice. However, there is plenty of opportunity for further progress in creating the common forensic area. The paper will focus on accreditation of forensic DNA laboratories in V4 countries.

Interpol review of forensic management, 2019–2022

“…The alliance of these forensic laboratory networks establish standards for minimum required documents (MRDs) across forensic areas of investigation [ 4 , 46 ]. Uniformity in global practice includes the perception of quality as signaled through accreditation standards, which enhances the abilities of management to deliver forensic science analysis [ 52 , 53 ].…”

“…As a testament to this, the number of forensic laboratories that are accredited with ISO standards has increased over the last several decades [ 15 ]; Ross & Neuteboom,2022). This has helped to boost the confidence level of stakeholders and customers of forensic science services and has facilitated inter-laboratory and cross-border collaboration [ 53 , 111 , 115 ]. Given the fragmented nature of forensic science laboratories in many countries [ 10 , 29 ], international accreditation standards may be a way to centralize standards in lieu of a national forensic science authority or a system supported by some stakeholders [ 18 ]; National Research Council, 2009), supporting the investigations of cross-border crimes [ 115 ].…”

“…Quality assurance can be supported in several other ways, many but not all of which are tied to accreditation standards. The following is a non-exhaustive list of quality assurance methods, the details of which can be found either in other sections of this review or in the supporting texts cited: lean six sigma or total quality management approach to improve turnaround time and efficiency [ 11 , 116 , 117 ]; Daku,2019 [ 118 ]; the use of a LIMS or case management system [ 10 , 111 , 119 ]; blind proficiency testing [ 20 , 27 , 30 , 53 , 54 , 108 , 120 ]; improved education or certification of forensic scientists and technicians [ 15 , 20 , [29] , [30] , [31] , 36 , 40 , 52 , 115 , 121 ]; other stakeholders [ 10 , 40 , 58 ]; improvements in organizational culture and stress reduction [ 19 , 23 , 116 , 122 ]; laboratory independence [ 17 , 18 , 52 , 120 ]; effective use of regulation [ 15 , 16 , 31 , 109 ]; improvements in evidence chain of custody and storage [ 10 , 119 , 123 , 124 ]; improvements in crime scene management and testing standards [ 10 , 15 , 125 , 126 ]; and reduction of biases and conflicts of interest [ [15] , [16] , [17] , 20 , 21 , 52 , 53 , …”

“…Accreditation requires proficiency testing to measure error for remedial purposes. However, most laboratories still practice open proficiency testing where technicians know they are being tested [ 53 , 108 , 120 ]. The test environment is likely to influence a person's behavior, so blind proficiency testing is preferred, where the analyst does not know a test is underway.…”

“…Integration with public data for instance has allowed for regional investigations to leverage larger datasets, such as the CODIS dataset, to then be able to solve national or international cross-border, serial, and volume crimes more effectively in ways not possible in decades past [ 25 , 26 ]. Challenges to networking technology exist, such as the adoption of a common forensic science language and standards across jurisdictions, but accreditation has served to overcome some of this hurdle [ 53 , 115 ]. The location of servers, regulations on when to include data into national databases, or how to handle data created by blind proficiency testing, etc.…”