Sequential Unmasking: A Means of Minimizing Observer Effects in Forensic DNA Interpretation

Krane, Dan E.; Ford, Simon; Gilder, Jason R.; Inman, Keith; Jamieson, Allan; Koppl, Roger; Kornfield, Irv; Risinger, D. Michael; Rudin, Norah; Taylor, Marc Scott; Thompson, William C.

doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00787.x

Cited by 139 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A second hybrid approach, which was proposed specifically for forensic DNA analysis, is called sequential unmasking 5 . This approach controls the sequence in which various analyses are performed in order to minimize the potential for contextual bias.…”

Section: The Role Of Forensic Scientists In Criminal Investigationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Role Should Investigative Facts Play in the Evaluation of Scientific Evidence

Thompson

2010

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Role Of Forensic Scientists In Criminal Investigationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By their account, contextual ignorance is a greater evil than contextual bias. (Inman and Rudin have taken a more nuanced position, however, in recent writings 5,6 and now endorse the need for blind procedures in some circumstances).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Role Should Investigative Facts Play in the Evaluation of Scientific Evidence

Thompson

2010

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some advocate a strict linear 'sequential unmasking' approach whereby there is no 'going back'. Others would allow an analyst to go back without restrictions (as long as the changes were documented) [34]. However, I suggest a more balanced linear approach which allows the flexibility of 'going back', but limits when and how this can be done (e.g.…”

Section: (D) the Role Of The Forensic Examinermentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive neuroscience in forensic science: understanding and utilizing the human element

Dror

2015

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One contribution of 15 to a discussion meeting issue 'The paradigm shift for UK forensic science'. The human element plays a critical role in forensic science. It is not limited only to issues relating to forensic decision-making, such as bias, but also relates to most aspects of forensic work (some of which even take place before a crime is ever committed or long after the verification of the forensic conclusion). In this paper, I explicate many aspects of forensic work that involve the human element and therefore show the relevance (and potential contribution) of cognitive neuroscience to forensic science. The 10 aspects covered in this paper are proactive forensic science, selection during recruitment, training, crime scene investigation, forensic decision-making, verification and conflict resolution, reporting, the role of the forensic examiner, presentation in court and judicial decisions. As the forensic community is taking on the challenges introduced by the realization that the human element is critical for forensic work, new opportunities emerge that allow for considerable improvement and enhancement of the forensic science endeavour.

show abstract

“…Indeed, the leading framework for control of biasing information, "sequential unmasking," explicitly builds into its two-stage process a filtration of domain-irrelevant information coupled with the release of domain-relevant information with the potential to induce bias in the least biasing order consistent with maximal accuracy [7]. Nor does this approach deprive law enforcement of investigatory guidance informed by forensic expertise.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Regarding Champod, editorial: “Research focused mainly on bias will paralyse forensic science”

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer reviewed eScholarship.orgPowered by the California Digital Library University of California Dear Dr. Barron, Regarding Champod, editorial: "Research focused mainly on bias will paralyse forensic science."In 2009, a report of the (U.S.) National Research Council declared that " [t]he forensic science disciplines are just beginning to become aware of contextual bias and the dangers it poses" [1]. The report called for additional research and discussion of how best to address this problem. Since that time, the literature on the topic of contextual bias in forensic science has begun to expand, and some laboratories are beginning to change procedures to address the problem. In his recent editorial in Science and Justice, Christophe Champod suggests that this trend has gone too far and threatens to "paralyse forensic science" [2]. We think his arguments are significantly overstated and deserve forceful refutation, lest they stand in the way of meaningful progress on this important issue.Dr. Champod opens by acknowledging that forensic scientists are vulnerable to bias. He says that he does not "want to minimize the importance of [research on this issue] and how it contributes to a better management of forensic science…" He continues by asking "...but should research remain focused on processes, or should we not move on to the basic understanding of the forensic traces?" He then comments on risks of "being focused on bias only." By framing the matter in this way, Dr. Champod creates a false dichotomy, and implies facts about the current state of funding and research that are simply not the case. He seems to be saying that currently all or most research funding and publication is directed toward problems of bias, and little or none toward "basic understanding of the forensic traces." Dr. Champod should know this is not the case, however, since (among other things) he is a co-author of a marvelous recently-released empirical study on fingerprint analysis funded by the (U.S.) National Institute of Justice [3]. Any perusal of NIJ grants, or the contents of leading forensic science journals, would not support Dr. Champod's apparent view of the current research world.It would of course be a mistake for all of the available funding for research on forensic science topics to be devoted to the potential effects of bias, but again, this is neither the case currently nor is it in our opinion likely to become the case in the future. To discuss the risks of focusing "on bias only," is simply raising a straw man when no one, not even the most ardent supporter of sequential unmasking or other approaches to the control of biasing information in forensic science practice, suggests focusing research "on bias only."That said, we do believe that the research record both in forensic science and in a variety of other scientific areas has reached a point that clearly establishes the pressing need for all forensic areas to address the problem of contextual bias. As Andrew Rennison, who was then the forensic science regulator for England ...

show abstract

Sequential Unmasking: A Means of Minimizing Observer Effects in Forensic DNA Interpretation

Cited by 139 publications

References 3 publications

What Role Should Investigative Facts Play in the Evaluation of Scientific Evidence

What Role Should Investigative Facts Play in the Evaluation of Scientific Evidence

Cognitive neuroscience in forensic science: understanding and utilizing the human element

Regarding Champod, editorial: “Research focused mainly on bias will paralyse forensic science”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About