This look hits most of the highs and lows of contentious statements from law enforcement after the President’s Council took on their established police forensic turf. It does mention wrongful convictions stemming from overrated forensic ‘science’ which seemed left out of the conversations about why NAS and PCAST did what they did.
A few choice blurbs:
Anti PCAST: (the feds)
“The report makes broad, unsupported assertions regarding science and forensic science practice,” the Bureau wrote. “The PCAST criteria define ‘black box’ studies as the benchmark to demonstrate foundational validity, but provide no clarification on how many studies are needed or why some studies that have been conducted do not meet their criteria.
Pro PCAST: (mainstream scientists from the American Association for the Advancement Science)
“We expect the reports emerging from the project to encourage basic research and contribute to improving the quality of forensic science used in the legal system,” Frankel said last year. “The project’s impact could be transformational for the criminal justice system, enabling the public to have confidence that the ability to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent is advanced.”
Cautious: (American Academy of Forensic Sciences)
“The PCAST report is an important start to the discussion of scientific validity and we look forward to continuing that discussion with the larger community of forensic science practitioners,” reads the October AAFS statement.”
Full article
About csidds
Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends 