More DNA PR on hair from Australia. Why don’t we hear about the data?

Once more, we get  a university talking about “great breakthroughs” in forensic analysis. This one is abut collecting “trace” DNA from hair shafts (i.e “shed hair”) which “improves success rates” not seen using prior methods.

My main gripe is that these schools almost never reveal where the studies’ data has been peer reviewed and published. Sadly, that in itself generally takes one to two years to accomplish AFTER the results are obtained.

The PR writers always want the scoop.

Someone wiser than me has suggested that there be a professional archive that would allow the data to be available to competent researchers before a written paper gets in print. The Journal of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (sadly it only has an Impact Factor of 1.14) takes that long, even though they publish 6 journals per years.

Im sure the bio-medical journals would HATE that idea of a data archive.

Original news release.

Here is another example, although more descriptive, about 3D scanning impression evidence like tires and footwear. An added issue is its direct connection with commercial enterprise all in the same article. Some would expect a bit of conformation bias to be present.

About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in criminal justice, CSI, Forensic Science, Forensic Science Bias, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s