The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions

POLICING FORENSIC EVIDENCE

Introducing the New Editorial Team

NAS: speaking the truth to power for 150 years

We all desire to have meaningful experiences in life, but what factors give rise to perceptions of meaning? Across seven preregistered studies (total N = 1362), we examined the role of self-transcendence (i.e., benefits to society) and self-enhancement (i.e., benefits to the self) in people's judgments of meaning, in comparison with their judgments of happiness. We found that people weighed benefits to society more heavily than benefits to the self when evaluating the meaning of different jobs (Study 1), other people's life (Study 2a), and advice given to others (Study 2b). In contrast, benefits to the self were weighed similarly to (Studies 1 and 2) or even more heavily than benefits to society (Study 3) in people's judgments about happiness, suggesting people's meaning judgment is more self-transcendent than happiness judgment. Similar differences between meaning and happiness were found in participants' first-party perceptions of their own jobs (Study 4), advice intended to improve their own lives (Study 5), and actual feelings of completing a behavioral task (Study 7), except that self-enhancement played a relatively bigger role in first-party meaning judgments than in third-party meaning judgments (Studies 4-6). The results consistently suggest that people's meaning perceptions are more self-transcendent than their happiness perceptions (Studies 1-7). Our findings help illuminate the social-cognitive processes underlying people's perceptions of meaning, as well as shed light on the similarities and differences between people's conceptualizations of meaning and happiness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), established in 1863, is the United States’ leading science and technology think-tank, with an active commitment to advising government. Over the last 150 years, the NAS has, both independently and in conjunction with the federal government, investigated and reported on various issues of importance, ranging from space exploration and biosecurity, to STEM education and immigration. Due to growing concerns about particular disciplines (and specifically their application in legal proceedings), one issue the NAS has reported on between 1992 and 2009 is forensic science. Specifically, the NAS has published six reports commenting on the status of forensic science evidence in the USA, namely DNA Technology in Forensic Science (1992), The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence (1996), The Polygraph and Lie Detection (2003), Forensic Analysis: Weighing Bullet Lead Evidence (2004), Ballistic Imaging (2008), and Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (2009). The response of stakeholders (including from political, legal, and academic spheres) to these reports has varied, ranging from shifts in practice and full acknowledgement, to considerable struggles to effectuate systemic reform. Using the different experiences of two reports – Forensic Analysis: Weighing Bullet Lead Evidence (2004) and Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (2009) – as a vehicle, this article suggests how the NAS can strengthen the impact of its forensic science reporting, and how stakeholders can better harness the expertise of the NAS.

In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) authored the report Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. In it, the Committee expressed the need for accreditation and certification. Accreditation, long recognized by public labs as an important benchmark in quality, was recognized as an important way to standardize laboratories that provide forensic services. Certification can play an important role as a method of oversight in the forensic sciences—something also recommended by the - National Commission on Forensic Science in October 2014. The Complete Guide to the ABC's Molecular Biology is a professional certification examination preparation text for forensic scientists taking the American Board of Criminalistics Examination in Molecular Biology. The book serves as a resource for forensic scientists—who are facing more and more pressure to become certified—to support them in their pursuit of forensic certification. In the years since the NAS report was published, there has been increased discussion of forensic certification requirements. ABC’s Molecular Biology exam is a quality certification, and learning the concepts for it will invariably help any professional working in the field. The book prepares readers in all relevant topic areas, including: accreditation, safety, biological screen principles, anatomy and cell biology, crime scene and evidence handling, concepts in genetics, biochemistry, statistics, DNA evidence, and DNA testing. The book will be particularly helpful for forensic science laboratory technicians, police and investigations professionals, forensic serology and DNA analysts, attorneys, and forensic science students. This study guide follows the guidelines for the exam and presents all the information necessary to prepare individuals to pass the exam.

Notwithstanding the acceptance of firearm identification by courts, the scientific community has been reluctant to recognise firearm identification as a reliable method of conclusively establishing a connection between a particular bullet and a particular gun. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in the United States (US) has categorised firearm identification as a discipline under forensic science, and forensic science has been described as a "fractured and burdened discipline". In addition, in 2009 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that forensic science is broken. With regard to firearm identification, the NAS Report emphasised the need for sufficient studies to be done because this report regarded this type of evidence as unreliable and lacking repeatability. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Report, released in September 2016, came to a conclusion similar to that of the 2009 NAS Report with regard to forensic science evidence. With regard to firearm identification, the report asserted that firearm identification evidence still "falls short of the scientific criteria for foundational validity". It is disturbing that courts across the globe are using different types of forensic science without subjecting them to scrutiny so as to determine their reliability. In the light of this, reliability and validity have become important factors which demand attention in Anglo-American litigation, even in jurisdictions that do not have a formal reliability standard (such as England and Wales, and South Africa). This article shows the role of cross-examination in establishing the reliability of firearm expert evidence. It also focusses on the role that South African forensic practitioners, prosecutors, defence counsels and presiding officers can play in ensuring the reliability of firearm identification evidence

The current status of forensic science laboratory accreditation in Europe

Safeguarding forensic DNA reference samples with nullomer barcodes

The article is devoted to the study of the legal regime of property (property complexes) of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and national branch academies of sciences.The conclusion about the need to bring the Law of Ukraine „On the peculiarities of the legal regime of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, sectoral national academies of science and the status of their property complex” into line with the laws of Ukraine „On management of state-owned objects” and „On scientific and scientific-technical activity” in particular, in terms of the unification of legal norms defining the powers of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and national branch academies of sciences for the management of objects of property complexes relevant academies.It is proposed to define in the Law of Ukraine „On the peculiarities of the legal regime of activity of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, branch national academies of sciences and the status of their property complex” the content of the right of economic management and the right of operational management of property of these academies and their scientific organizations as well as to fix the concepts of the right to conduct business and operational management rights, revealing their contents, in the updated Civil Code of Ukraine.

The Committee to Assess the Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion [National Academy of Sciences (NAS)] released its final report [National Research Council (NRC) 2005] in January 2005, recommending a reference dose (RfD) for perchlorate of 0.0007 mg/kg-day. In a commentary published online on 25 May 2005, Ginsberg and Rice (2005) criticized the adequacy of the NAS committee’s scientific deliberations, mischaracterizing the studies reviewed by the committee and second-guessing its conclusions. Ginsberg and Rice (2005) implied that the U.S. Environmental Protections Agency’s (EPA’s) previous draft RfD of 0.00003 mg/kg-day (U. S. EPA 2002)—and by inference the Massachusetts perchlorate risk assessment [Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Mass DEP) 2004] that mirrored the U.S. EPA’s approach and which Ginsberg and Rice peer reviewed—is more scientifically defensible. The NAS committee was composed of 15 leading physicians and scientists with combined range of expertise to evaluate every scientific aspect of the perchlorate database and of the U.S. EPA’s assessment of that database. The makeup of this committee and its credentials are available on the NAS website (NAS 2004). The NAS committee studied and deliberated for more than 15 months before issuing its report. Those deliberations included three public meetings during which it accepted verbal and/or written comments from the U.S. EPA, other government agencies, industry, states, environmental groups, and attorneys. After careful study and consideration of the scientific studies that formed the basis for the U.S. EPA’s 2002 draft RfD as well as the 2004 Massachusetts risk assessment (Mass DEP 2004), the NAS committee considered several of the animal studies … to be flawed in their design and execution. Conclusions based on those studies, particularly the neurodevelopmental studies, were not supported by the results of the studies. Although Ginsberg and Rice (2005) implied that the NAS committee should have considered the threshold for measurable iodine uptake inhibition “adverse” and that the NAS inadvertently left out the “A” in NOAEL (no observed adverse effect level), the committee decisively stated that “inhibition of iodide uptake by the thyroid clearly is not an adverse effect.” The committee carefully considered the issue of a NOEL (no observed effect level) and a NOAEL. Based on a clinical study of patients receiving perchlorate long term, the NAS established the NOAEL as 0.4 mg/kg-day (57 times higher than its identified NOEL). Ginsberg and Rice (2005) further expressed concerns regarding perchlorate in breast milk and the subsequent possibility of decreased breast milk iodine, citing Kirk et al. (2005) and Gibbs (2004). Kirk et al. (2005) reported perchlorate and iodide levels in breast milk samples and noted that “if we take all the available data, there is no meaningful correlation between the perchlorate and iodide levels in breast milk.” The study from Chile that Ginsberg and Rice refer to as Gibbs (2004) is now published as Tellez et al. (2005). The study found that iodine nutrition of pregnant women in Chile is very similar to that in the United States. Tellez et al. (2005) found no maternal or neonatal perchlorate-related thyroid effects or decreases in breast milk iodine with perchlorate doses spanning the 0.0007–0.007 mg/kg-day range. Ginsberg and Rice (2005) argued that perchlorate database deficiencies require an additional uncertainty factor of 3–10 because of key data gaps, citing breast milk concerns and the extrapolation from a 14-day exposure study to chronic exposure. The NAS committee (NRC 2005) considered this and concluded that if inhibition of iodide uptake by the thyroid is duration-dependent, the effect should decrease rather than increase with time, because compensation would increase the activity of the sodium-iodide symporter and therefore increase iodide transport into the thyroid. Evidence has subsequently shown this to be the case (Braverman et al. 2005). The California EPA perchlorate risk assessment (California EPA 2004) relied on the same studies as the NRC report (NRC 2005). The “point of departure” was based on iodine uptake inhibition by Greer et al. (2002), and a total uncertainty factor of 10 was applied to account for interindividual variability. After reviewing the NRC report (NRC 2005), the California EPA elected not to change its risk assessment or public health goal (California EPA 2005). In summary, the concerns presented by Ginsberg and Rice (2005) have already been addressed thoroughly by experts on perchlorate and thyroid toxicology and were found to be unsubstantiated. The NAS committee and other experts came to this conclusion based on a comprehensive review of the science in the field, not based entirely on an individual study, which has been mischaracterized by Ginsberg and Rice.

The realm of analytical chemistry continues to struggle with defining and evaluating the limit of detection in analytical methods in the sense that a multitude of definitions, criteria, caveats, and methods have been proposed, developed, and adopted across disciplines. The last decade has seen a surge in the growth of electrochemical methods and studies in the field of forensic science and forensic chemistry. While many disciplines within forensic science have established method validation guidelines, the historical and current lack of electrochemical methods within forensic laboratories throughout the United States has left a major gap in knowledge, inhibiting the adoption and utilization of electrochemistry, which may serve as a powerful tool in many subdisciplines of forensics. As such, this work begins this discussion by focusing first on the limit of detection (LOD), with application toward both qualitative and quantitative methods. Both inorganic (ferrocyanide and lead) and organic (diphenylamine, naltrexone, and acetaminophen) target analytes were analyzed via two common voltammetry methods: cyclic voltammetry and square-wave voltammetry. The LOD for each analyte was estimated and/or calculated following a variety of literature-described methods and compared. The accuracy and reliability of these LOD characteristics based on the experimental data is described herein along with suggestions and recommendations. This manuscript is intended to compare the resulting LOD values from various methods and provide a starting point for the incorporation of electrochemistry into the forensic science laboratory, beginning a focused discussion on the development of validation guidelines and parameters needed for the adoption of this technology in forensic laboratories in order to meet the standards required by the criminal justice system.

American forensic science as an organized field is less than a hundred years old. On balance, this relatively young field has almost certainly had a positive impact on the accurate determination of factual guilt and factual innocence in the criminal justice system. However, in the flush of youth, it is not uncommon for claims to outrun capabilities. For several decades now, many from the academy and some from forensic science itself have pointed to weaknesses both in various forensic fields and in the structure of forensic science practice itself—weaknesses that raised the specter of a forensic science that sometimes made unwarranted claims and that could in practice sometimes aid in the conviction of the innocent. These criticisms were generally dismissed without much examination by the bulk of the forensic science establishment, and the proponents of those claims were dismissed as well. However, the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council (NAS/NRC) Committee Report has now made it untenable to treat criticisms as simply the cavils of uninformed academics with nothing better to do. For that Report identifies and documents many of the weaknesses that had been pointed out by critics over the years, and it calls for the strengthening of forensic science through a process designed to address those weaknesses. As a welldocumented catalogue of the problems of forensic science by a highly credentiale body, this report is hugely important. But as a blueprint for change, it is subject to some serious reservations. The official title of the report is Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. This Article addresses the general route envisioned by the NAS/NRC Committee (the “Committee”) in its Report and some of the more serious roadblocks and pitfalls that one may expect to encounter on that proposed path forward.

Technological advances are changing how forensic laboratories operate in all forensic disciplines, not only digital. Computers support workflow management, enable evidence analysis (physical and digital), and new technology enables previously unavailable forensic capabilities. Used properly, the integration of digital systems supports greater efficiency and reproducibility, and drives digital transformation of forensic laboratories. However, without the necessary preparations, these digital transformations can undermine the core principles and processes of forensic laboratories. Pertinent examples of problems involving technology that have occurred in laboratories are provided, along with opportunities and risk mitigation strategies, based on the authors’ experiences. Forensic preparedness concentrating on digital data reduces the cost and operational disruption of responding to various kinds of problems, including misplaced exhibits, allegations of employee misconduct, disclosure requirements, and information security breaches. This work presents recommendations to help forensic laboratories prepare for and manage these risks, to use technology effectively, and ultimately strengthen forensic science. The importance of involving digital forensic expertise in risk management of digital transformations in laboratories is emphasized. Forensic laboratories that do not adopt forensic digital preparedness will produce results based on digital data and processes that cannot be verified independently, leaving them vulnerable to challenge. The recommendations in this work could enhance international standards such as ISO/IEC 17025 used to assess and accredit laboratories.

The dominant conception of forensic science as a patchwork of disciplines primarily assisting the criminal justice system (i.e. forensics) is in crisis or at least shows a series of anomalies and serious limitations. In recent years, symptoms of the crisis have been discussed in a number of reports by various commentators, without a doubt epitomized by the 2009 report by the US National Academies of Sciences (NAS 2009 Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward). Although needed, but viewed as the solution to these drawbacks, the almost generalized adoption of stricter business models in forensic science casework compounded with ever-increasing normative and compliance processes not only place additional pressures on a discipline that already appears in difficulty, but also induce more fragmentation of the different forensic science tasks, a tenet many times denounced by the same NAS report and other similar reviews. One may ask whether these issues are not simply the result of an unfit paradigm. If this is the case, the current problems faced by forensic science may indicate future significant changes for the discipline. To facilitate broader discussion this presentation focuses on trace evidence, an area that is seminal to forensic science both for epistemological and historical reasons. There is, however, little doubt that this area is currently under siege worldwide. Current and future challenges faced by trace evidence are discussed along with some possible answers. The current situation ultimately presents some significant opportunities to re-invent not only trace evidence but also forensic science. Ultimately, a distinctive, more robust and more reliable science may emerge through rethinking the forensics paradigm built on specialisms, revisiting fundamental forensic science principles and adapting them to the twenty-first century.