The American Chemical Society has taken a very proactive position in reinforcing scientific standards through its involvement in forensic reform and progress. A notable aspect of this group is its university and industrial component membership base that conforms to legitimate scientific standards.
In my opinion this short statement from the ACS paints a clear picture on its scientific thought and practice that stands as an excellent resource for non-scientists and judges who seek a seminal reference document when asked to evaluate forensic testimony.
I’m thinking the Texas Forensic Science Commission which is currently thinking critically about bitemark evidence and is facing a group of self-serving dental pseudo-“scientists.”
Similarly, the ACS has other policy statements on forensic science available on their site. The ACS has taken a notable stance on forensic science in a 2012 news release targeting scientific issues involve in wrongful convictions. It is titled “The Innocence Project: Science helping innocent people found guilty.”
FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends 
JFS has published articles critical of bitemark “science” in the past. Has the article referred to ( “The ABFO has been critical of that study and has not published its results, wanting to conduct another survey with what its members believe will be more clear instructions.” ) been submitted to JFS?
Hi John
Iain Pretty, the co-investigator of the bitemark study mentioned, has submitted a manuscript to the JFS. This is despite the ABFO’s egregious attempts to intimidate him and Adam Freeman who was also involved in the study. Their biggest critic in Texas and in the AAFS is David Senn who “designed” the testing parameters used by Pretty and Freeman.