Report Reveals U.S. Forensic Lab System Has 'Serious Problems'

Photos

In the lab

see larger image

uploaded by Alfred Hermida

• 

  uploaded by Alfred Hermida | add comment

• 

  uploaded by Erik Larson | add comment

• 

  uploaded by mg7een | add comment

Siting understaffing, underfunding and lack of mandatory certification standards as contributing factors plaguing the U.S.' forensic laboratories, a much anticipated report was released by the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council, stating in the article:

It notes that forensic analysts commonly fail to acknowledge uncertainty when describing their findings.

"The simple reality is that the interpretation of forensic evidence is not always based on scientific studies to determine its validity," says the report. "This is a serious problem."

And the "case by case" approach of courtrooms is not the place to address the systemic problems with forensic standards, according to National Research Council committee co-chair Harry T. Edwards, senior circuit judge and chief judge emeritus of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In a statement accompanying the report, Edwards wrote that the "adversarial system used in the courts to determine the admissibility of forensic science evidence is often inadequate to the task."

The research council report recommends that a new, independent National Institute of Forensic Science set a research agenda, enforce standards and push for improvements.

This new institute, according to the report, "must have a culture that is strongly rooted in science" and "must not be part of a law enforcement agency."

The report also highlights the possibility of the wrongful conviction of innocent people based on faulty forensic analysis.

In addition to the original article, this link provides access to the full National Research Council report.