The seminal theme of the US forensic community professes that it can solve its own problems.
I doubt it. The public sees in the media these negative forensic themes: undo police/DA/politico attitude influences, the imbalance of drug testing predominating over rape kit testing, weak to non effective critical problem planning, underfunding by the NIJ, and thin accomplishments of QA oversight by forensics’ major organizations participating in various national commissions.
I’m not talking about the Texas Forensic Science Commission or the National Academy of Sciences.
I am talking about aspects of forensic science reform, where it comes from and the shadow world of resistance to it by first highlighting a forensic reform denier who poo poos (for a profit) the necessity of facing serious problems within this law enforcement managed industry. He will be a guest speaker (correction: presenting in a Workshop) at the upcoming American Academy of Forensic Sciences Plenary panel titled “Transformation: Embracing Change” meeting this February. He is the self-employed administrator of the Forensic Foundations Group. This tidbit is impressive as it confirms American Academy of Forensic Sciences is a good old boy club to its core. Influencing “change” by this group is at glacial (and shrinking) pace or maybe never has existed in advancing much support for decreasing wrongful convictions. Being in front is not in the AAFS mantra. Ironically, the forensically independent American Chemical Society, is an example of being in front of forensic policies.
I should balance the above by saying the White House has just taken the initiative to showcase the absolutely vapid bitemark dentists sponsored by the AAFS. This supports my thesis that the NAS, WH and the Texas Forensic Science Commission have accomplished more in outing forensic failures than those “stakeholders” within the forensics industry. The NAS came out with it’s cutting edge “strengthening forensic science” recommendations and exposed glaring forensic weaknesses. Texas skewered the arson “science” myths. It has recently tread upon aspects of DNA matching as well. All accomplished from OUTSIDE the forensic science communities.
For reference: Take a look at how science generally sputters at “auto-correcting itself” provided by this The Economist 2013 article, “Trouble at the Lab.”
