Forensic science and academic science.

Abstract

In his Editorial “Forensic science: Oxymoron?” (5 Dec., p. [1625][1]), Donald Kennedy questions the scientific basis of forensic evidence examination and concludes by questioning, and prodding at, the efforts of forensic scientists to improve the reliability of forensic evidence. To some extent, the field of forensic science must acknowledge these criticisms. Overshadowing this scolding, however, is the more troubling divide between academic and forensic science that is prevalent throughout and, unfortunately, encouraged by Kennedy's Editorial. A glaring illustration of this division was the unsuccessful National Academies' project on Science, Technology and Law “to examine science and its uses in forensic examinations.” A review of the members of this program reveals that not a single forensic scientist was included. Would such a project examine “science and its uses in chemistry” without a chemist? This attitude ignores the fact that, although forensic science has developed through the integration of principles from every scientific field, it has evolved into its own scientific discipline. The fact is that there is a great deal of science that cannot be packaged into standardized and verifiable techniques developed to be run by technicians. A recent example was the use of chemical microscopy to tie microscopic paint spheres found on victims' bodies to a specific manufacturer and end-use: the truck painting plant where Gary Ridgway, the Green River serial murderer, worked. Rather than have a drawn-out trial over four counts of murder based on “verified” DNA evidence, this paint evidence was significant enough to induce Ridgway to forgo a trial and admit guilt to 48 counts of murder to avoid a likely death sentence. The mystery in forensic science is not why practitioners do not want a more scientific technology for analyzing crimes, as Kennedy asks, but rather, why traditional sciences will not work with forensic science, rather than above it. Forensic science may be a redundant phrase, but it is not an oxymoron. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.302.5651.1625