Finding the way forward for forensic science in the US:a commentary on the PCAST report

A recent report by the US President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) [1] has made a number of recommendations for the future development of forensic science. Whereas we all agree that there is much need for change, we find that the PCAST report recommendations are founded on serious misunderstandings. We explain the traditional forensic paradigms of match and identification and the more recent foundation of the logical approach to evidence evaluation. This forms the groundwork for exposing many sources of confusion in the PCAST report. We explain how the notion of treating the scientist as a black box and the assignment of evidential weight through error rates is overly restrictive and misconceived. Our own view sees inferential logic, the development of calibrated knowledge and understanding of scientists as the core of the advance of the profession

Nanoparticles for fingermark detection: An insight into the reaction mechanism

© 2014 IOP Publishing Ltd. This publication presents one of the first uses of silicon oxide nanoparticles to detect fingermarks. The study is not confined to showing successful detection of fingermarks, but is focused on understanding the mechanisms involved in the fingermark detection process. To gain such an understanding, various chemical groups are grafted onto the nanoparticle surface, and parameters such as the pH of the solutions or zeta potential are varied to study their influence on the detection. An electrostatic interaction has been the generally accepted hypothesis of interaction between nanoparticles and fingermarks, but the results of this research challenge that hypothesis, showing that the interaction is chemically driven. Carboxyl groups grafted onto the nanoparticle surfaces react with amine groups of the fingermark secretion. This formation of amide linkage between carboxyl and amine groups has further been favoured by catalyzing the reaction with a compound of diimide type. The research strategy adopted here ought to be applicable to all detection techniques using nanoparticles. For most of them the nature of the interaction remains poorly understood

Les nouvelles lignes directrices du European Network of Forensic Sciences Institut en matière d’évaluation et de communication des résultats d’analyses et d’expertises scientifiques

Au printemps 2015, le European Network of Forensic Science Institutes a publié des lignes directrices visant à unifier les méthodes de travail des scientifiques agissant comme auxiliaires de la justice, plus précisément l’évaluation des résultats d’analyses scientifiques (logique du raisonnement) et la communication de ces résultats aux magistrats. Cette contribution a pour but d’expliciter ces lignes directrices et d’expliquer en quoi il est primordial que la justice suisse les adopte. — Im Frühjahr 2015 publizierte das ENFSI (European Network of Forensic Science Institutes) Leitlinien für die Vereinheitlichung wissenschaftlicher Arbeitsmethoden, insbesondere für Bewertung von wissenschaftlichen Untersuchungsergebnissen (Logik der Befundbewertung) und die Berichterstattung zuhanden der Justiz. Dieser Beitrag erläutert diese Richtlinien und erklärt, weshalb es wichtig ist, dass sie in die Schweizer Justizpraxis Eingang finden

Evaluation of Forensic DNA Traces When Propositions of Interest Relate to Activities : Analysis and Discussion of Recurrent Concerns

When forensic scientists evaluate and report on the probative strength of single DNA traces, they commonly rely on only one number, expressing the rarity of the DNA profile in the population of interest. This is so because the focus is on propositions regarding the source of the recovered trace material, such as “the person of interest is the source of the crime stain.” In particular, when the alternative proposition is “an unknown person is the source of the crime stain,” one is directed to think about the rarity of the profile. However, in the era of DNA profiling technology capable of producing results from small quantities of trace material (i.e., non-visible staining) that is subject to easy and ubiquitous modes of transfer, the issue of source is becoming less central, to the point that it is often not contested. There is now a shift from the question “whose DNA is this?” to the question “how did it get there?” As a consequence, recipients of expert information are now very much in need of assistance with the evaluation of the meaning and probative strength of DNA profiling results when the competing propositions of interest refer to different activities. This need is widely demonstrated in day-to-day forensic practice and is also voiced in specialized literature. Yet many forensic scientists remain reluctant to assess their results given propositions that relate to different activities. Some scientists consider evaluations beyond the issue of source as being overly speculative, because of the lack of relevant data and knowledge regarding phenomena and mechanisms of transfer, persistence and background of DNA. Similarly, encouragements to deal with these activity issues, expressed in a recently released European guideline on evaluative reporting (Willis et al., 2015), which highlights the need for rethinking current practice, are sometimes viewed skeptically or are not considered feasible. In this discussion paper, we select and discuss recurrent skeptical views brought to our attention, as well as some of the alternative solutions that have been suggested. We will argue that the way forward is to address now, rather than later, the challenges associated with the evaluation of DNA results (from small quantities of trace material) in light of different activities to prevent them being misrepresented in court

Helping to distinguish primary from secondary transfer events for trace DNA.

DNA is routinely recovered in criminal investigations. The sensitivity of laboratory equipment and DNA profiling kits means that it is possible to generate DNA profiles from very small amounts of cellular material. As a consequence, it has been shown that DNA we detect may not have arisen from a direct contact with an item, but rather through one or more intermediaries. Naturally the questions arising in court, particularly when considering trace DNA, are of how DNA may have come to be on an item. While scientists cannot directly answer this question, forensic biological results can help in discriminating between alleged activities. Much experimental research has been published showing the transfer and persistence of DNA under varying conditions, but as of yet the results of these studies have not been combined to deal with broad questions about transfer mechanisms. In this work we use published data and Bayesian networks to develop a statistical logical framework by which questions of transfer mechanism can be approached probabilistically. We also identify a number of areas where further work could be carried out in order to improve our knowledge base when helping to address questions about transfer mechanisms. Finally, we apply the constructed Bayesian network to ground truth known data to determine if, with current knowledge, there is any power in DNA quantities to distinguish primary and secondary transfer events

Discussion on how to implement a verbal scale in a forensic laboratory: benefits, pitfalls and suggestions to avoid misunderstandings

In a recently published guideline for evaluative reporting in forensic science, the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) recommended the use of the likelihood ratio for the measurement of the value of forensic results. As a device to communicate the probative value of the results, the ENFSI guideline mentions the possibility to define and use a verbal scale, which should be unified within a forensic institution. This paper summarizes discussions held between scientists of our institution to develop and implement such a verbal scale. It intends to contribute to general discussions likely to be faced by any forensic institution that engages in continuous monitoring and improving of their evaluation and reporting format. We first present published arguments in favour of the use of such verbal qualifiers. We emphasize that verbal qualifiers do not replace the use of numbers to evaluate forensic findings, but are useful to communicate the probative value, since the weight of evidence in terms of likelihood ratio are still apprehended with difficulty by both the forensic scientists, especially in absence of hard data, and the recipient of information. We further present arguments that support the development of the verbal scale we propose. Recognising the limits of the use of such a verbal scale, we then discuss its disadvantages: it may lead to the spurious view according to which the value of the observations made in a given case is relative to other cases. Verbal qualifiers are also prone to misunderstandings and cannot be coherently combined with other evidence. We therefore recommend not using the verbal qualifier alone in a written statement. While scientists should only report on the probability of the findings - and not on the probability of the propositions, which are the duty of the Court - we suggest showing examples to let the recipient of information understand how the scientific evidence affects the probabilities of the propositions. To avoid misunderstandings, we also advise to mention in the statement what the results do not mean. Finally, we are of the opinion that if experts were able to coherently articulate numbers, and if recipients of information could properly handle such numbers, then verbal qualifiers could be abandoned completely. At that time, numerical expressions of probative value will be appropriately understood, as other numerical measures that most of us understand without the need of any further explanation, such as expressions for length or temperature