Forensic science crisis could undermine justice system

The field of forensic science is “in crisis”, partly due to underfunding, and could be undermining the justice system, an academic has warned.

Niamh Nic Daéid, professor of forensic science at the University of Dundee, told BBC Radio 4’s The Life Scientific that there was “no place any more for the complacency of what some would argue are the old guard”.

However, she welcomed “the openings of an appetite from the legal side to come to the table, and from the scientific side to do the same”.

She spoke on the radio programme last week in the wake of increasing scrutiny of the field.

The Royal Society, a fellowship of the world’s most distinguished scientists, hosted a scientific discussion meeting in February with Professor Nic Daéid and Professor Sue Black OBE FRSE, under the title “The paradigm shift for UK forensic science”.

The pair also organised and edited an issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society focusing on the issues within the field.

In the introduction, they wrote: “In just the first three months of 2015, we have seen criticism of the scientific validity of low copy number DNA and the mathematical software used to de-convolute DNA mixtures in both the USA and Australia.

“The validity of conclusions drawn by the FBI on hair evidence has been heavily criticised and the scientific validity of ballistics has been challenged.

“However, in this ruling there also lurks an astonishing judicial compliance accepting that the status quo of poor, if not absent scientific underpinning for some areas of forensic evidence is acceptable.”

They wrote that “more funding will not make it all disappear like a bad dream”, but that “changes to culture and communication, in true partnership with our legal colleagues, will turn this situation around”, adding: “There can be no tolerance for shoddy science and no space for the unqualified in the courtroom.”

Professor Nic Daéid, who has over twenty years of experience in forensic science, said most forensic research funding is going towards DNA research and that finding sources of funding remains “challenging” across the field.

However, she criticised calls for additional funding alone as “the laziest solution that first springs to mind” in the Philosophical Transactions, stressing that the field has to also face its “fundamental” shortcomings.

In 2009, a landmark report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found that flawed science was being presented in US courtrooms by unreliable experts.

It said there was a “dearth of peer-reviewed, published studies establishing the scientific basis and validity of many forensic methods”.

Professor Nic Daéid told BBC Radio 4 that “the concern is not necessarily how the scientific result is articulated in the courtroom but the underpinning science”.

She said scientists had an obligation to “make sure the underpinning science is robust, so the lawyers will talk to us about what it means, not whether the science is good enough”.

Professor Nic Daéid added that they “were incredibly fortunate to be supported by the Royal Society to set up a discussion meeting” and said there now needs to be a “strategic conversation between the judiciary and the scientists”.

She said: “If we don’t start to really take a look at the deficiencies in the underpinning science behind the techniques that we use, the worst that will happen is miscarriages of justice.

“Other consequences are that some of the sciences that we conventionally use will not be allowed into the courtroom.”

She said the judiciary was now becoming “more discerning” of scientific evidence and scientists shouldn’t feel afraid to say certain types of evidence ” good enough for our criminal justice system”.