The Need for a Research Culture in the Forensic Sciences

Abstract

This Article grew out of a conference held at UCLA School of Law in February 2010 under the auspices of PULSE. We thank the UCLA School of Law and the A. Barry & Lorri Cappello Fund for funding this event. We also thank Forrest Havens and Julie Nicholson for helpful research assistance. Special thanks to Jerry Kang for his extraordinary mindmapping of the authors' working session during the conference. We would also like to thank the additional participants in the PULSE symposium, as well as the thoughtful commentators who have responded to this Article in this issue. 2 DRAFT: Do not cite 58:3 Mnookin et al Mnookin Final Proof 1 (1/12/2011 3:41:00 PM) firmly agree that the traditional forensic sciences in general, and the pattern identification disciplines, such as fingerprint, firearm, tool mark and handwriting identification evidence in particular, do not currently possess-and absolutely must develop-a well-established scientific foundation. This can only be accomplished through the development of a research culture that permeates the entire field of forensic science. A research culture, we argue, must be grounded in the values of empiricism, transparency, and a commitment to an ongoing critical perspective. The forensic science disciplines need to substantially increase their commitment to evidence from empirical research as the basis for their conclusions. Sound research, rather than experience, training, and longstanding use, must become the central method by which assertions are justified. In this Article, we describe the underdeveloped research culture in the non-DNA forensic sciences, offer suggestions for how it might be improved, and explain why it matters.

Legal versus non-legal approaches to forensic science evidence

“…Most of the historical forensic sciences evolved to meet the needs of police departments and courts (Harris, 2012; Cole, 2001). They were not part of endogenous scientific research and were often insulated from it through legal, rather than scientific, applications and recognition (See Koehler et al, 2011). Recognition, legitimacy and public resources have been conferred through the willingness of courts to admit and rely upon the evidentiary products of particular individuals, groups and disciplines.…”

“… 101. Many forensic analysts do not hold formal scientific or technical qualification and so are not necessarily well positioned to respond to criticisms based on scientific methods, statistical issues or cognitive science. See Koehler et al (2011). …”

The nucleic acid revolution continues – will forensic biology become forensic molecular biology?

“…It is, however, hoped that the forensic science, law enforcement and legal communities have now more experience on how to deal with such issues than when forensic DNA profiling originally came to the fore. The development and fostering of forensic science as a distinctive holistic discipline (Margot, 2011; Roux et al, 2012) and the establishment of a stronger research culture in forensic science (Mnookin et al, 2011) will also assist to achieve a relatively smooth transition.…”

Firearm examination: Examiner judgments and computer‐based comparisons

“…The validity and reliability of the judgments could be assessed with proficiency tests using items with a known source, where the difficulty of the comparisons is comparable to what is seen in casework. These proficiency tests should preferably be performed in a double-blind fashion in casework [10,22].…”