In an equitable move [probably in the face of all the LEO crime labs complaining] requested by the President’s Council of Science and Technology chairman, Eric Lander, the AAFS is asking its membership to provide more information not mentioned in PCAST’s report. PCAST is asking for studies with data supporting the following forensic disciplines by December 14, 2016. Their criteria for submission:
(i) have been published in the scientific literature, (ii) were not mentioned in the PCAST report; and (iii) describe appropriately designed, research studies that provide empirical evidence establishing the foundational validity and estimating the accuracy of any of the following forensic feature-comparison methods, as they are currently practiced:
- Please indicate how the scientific reports establish foundational validity and estimate the accuracy of the relevant method.
The subject areas are:
- DNA analysis of mixed samples with three or more contributors, in which the contributor in question represents less than 20% of the sample.
- Bitemark analysis. [emphasis added]
- Firearms analysis to associate ammunition with an individual gun (as opposed to analysis to identify class characteristics).
- Footwear analysis to associate an impression with an individual item of footwear (as opposed to analysis to identify class characteristics).
- Hair analysis.
Please send replies to email@example.com by December 14, 2016.
I am sure the bitemarkers can come up with something in 10 days. They may need some help. Any volunteers?