Toward a common language for quality issues in forensic science

Abstract

The call for transparency with regards to the disclosure of errors in forensic science has permeated dialogues within the field, the legal arena and the public domain. While the challenges of meeting this need have been debated, no consistently accepted approach to recording or disclosing critical issues in forensic science has been developed. Part of the solution may lie in the quality system structures already present in forensic service providers world‐wide. However, while quality systems themselves may be standardized, the language used within them is not. We argue that the development of a common language for quality issues in forensic science may provide the key to unlocking this crucial information to support collaboration, continuous improvement, and the fundamental understanding of “error” in forensic science. This article is categorized under: Forensic Chemistry and Trace Evidence > Trace Evidence Jurisprudence and Regulatory Oversight > Communication Across Science and Law Jurisprudence and Regulatory Oversight > Interdisciplinary Collaboration Forensic Chemistry and Trace Evidence > Presentation and Evaluation of Forensic Science Output

The transparency and reproducibility of systematic reviews in forensic science

“…Other fields are finding such work useful in 'calibrating' [52] those research ecosystems, finding areas for improvement, studying ways to make those changes, and then conducting additional research to see if those changes have had the desired effect. Indeed, Munafò and colleagues recently stated that the field of metaresearch is 'flourishing and has generated substantial empirical evidence for the existence and prevalence of threats to efficiency in knowledge accumulation' [54]. Forensic science has engaged in considerable self-reflection in the past several years [7,28,54,55], but, to our knowledge, systematic metaresearch has not followed.…”

“…Indeed, Munafò and colleagues recently stated that the field of metaresearch is 'flourishing and has generated substantial empirical evidence for the existence and prevalence of threats to efficiency in knowledge accumulation' [54]. Forensic science has engaged in considerable self-reflection in the past several years [7,28,54,55], but, to our knowledge, systematic metaresearch has not followed. As forensic science continues to evolve, its changes must be guided by sound metaresearch.…”

Intelligence and the Value of Forensic Science

“…Subsequently to these publications, there have been several manuscripts that highlight the key role of intelligence involving the crime laboratory [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]. While these manuscripts address the role of intelligence in general, other contributions to the literature address the role of intelligence in specific areas of investigation including crime scene investigation [58,59], DNA [60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78], digital evidence [79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88], document examination [89][90][91], drugs-controlled substances [38,…”

Management and disclosure of quality issues in forensic science: A survey of current practice in Australia and New Zealand

“…With many forensic service agencies operating quality management systems compliant with standards such as ISO/IEC 17025, a wealth of information on the types of issues detected in forensic processes is available, with the potential to be shared and collated for purposes including detecting trends, identifying opportunities for research and development and the facilitation of interagency comparison and benchmarking [ 5 ].…”

“…A fundamental concern for agencies with sharing this data publicly may be the risk of potential misuse or misunderstanding of the information. This concern may be further compounded by the lack of standardisation in how that information is collected between agencies and the terminology used, making the sharing of this information difficult [ 5 ]. The implications of a lack of a standardised approach to quality issue investigation and management were highlighted in the recent Commission of Inquiry into Forensic DNA Testing in Queensland, particularly with regards to the perceived risk to transparency where a consistent approach is not apparent [ 6 ].…”