R&D in Forensic Science R&D in Forensic Science A Provider’s Perspective A Provider’s Perspective Stan Brown, CEO Forensic Science Northern Ireland h thanks to Dr Sheila Willis, Director of FSL, & Chair of AFSP, for her inpu
Dec 18, 2015
R&D in Forensic ScienceR&D in Forensic ScienceA Provider’s PerspectiveA Provider’s Perspective
Stan Brown, CEO Forensic Science Northern IrelandWith thanks to Dr Sheila Willis, Director of FSL, & Chair of AFSP, for her input
Stan Brown, CEO Forensic Science Northern IrelandWith thanks to Dr Sheila Willis, Director of FSL, & Chair of AFSP, for her input
FSNI OverviewFSNI Overview
• Executive Agency of NIO – Independent from Police
• International reputation forged in NI’s “Troubles”
• >215 staff (>65% scientists)
• Broader range of forensic specialist disciplines than most other single labs– Road Traffic Collisions (RTC)
– Special Fingerprint Unit (SFU)
– Physical Methods: Glass, Fibres, Paint, Toolmarks, Foot/Tyre Marks
– Questioned Documents & Thin Films
– Firearms
– Microchemistry
– Fires & Explosives
– Alcohol, Drugs & Toxicology
– DNA
– Biology
– Electronics
Criticisms from NAS reportCriticisms from NAS report
• Highly critical of lack of scientific validation of the traditional techniques in use
• Critical of lack of development of science in Law Enforcement agencies
• Critical of specialist groups as source of standardisation
• But; Naïve view that all science should be probabilistically quantifiable
DNADNA
• NAS report less critical in relation to DNA but lots of issues to be resolved
• Today’s technology is so sensitive that can produce matching profiles without knowing type of cellular material that is source of DNA.
• Urgent need for transfer and persistence studies for DNA
• Ability to put a numerical match probability on a profile can wrongly dominate the significant but unquantifiable variables in relation to its source
• Sometimes seen by police as magic bullet
Backdrop: UK V US?Backdrop: UK V US?
• All main UK providers are independent from police
• All are accredited to ISO 17025;2005 and are inspected at least
annually
• All collaborate in specialist working groups and proficiency trials
• All have QMS which demand staff competences to be maintained
• All work is peer reviewed (+ dip sampled)
• All UK providers also collaborate within ENFSI
• Regulator in place and strongly supported by all main providers
• US & UK adversarial systems V Europe inquisitorial
• US deal with science more as stand-alone
How to give rigour to the unquantifiable?How to give rigour to the unquantifiable?
• When is Expert Opinion “subjective” and when is it robust, objective, logical and transparent?
• Inherent variability of people, scenes and exhibits means that there are many uncontrolled variables directly affecting the evidence that may be recovered.
• Attempts are made to add rigour using analyses such as fibre populations, persistence studies, etc. but specific circumstances, local effects, irreducibly prevent accurate and meaningful attribution of probabilities to some key factors
• Therefore the overall probability in any one case may not be quantifiable
• Can we instead “validate” the expert judgement of individual scientists and of their collective interpretative approach ?
Backdrop: The Term Laboratory?Backdrop: The Term Laboratory?
• Those not directly involved in the delivery of forensic science often
misconstrue the providing organisations as primarily “labs”
• This is very misleading as it implies it is simply “boffins” or
“technicians” doing “tests”
• Many of the critical processes involved are not essentially laboratory
based or even “tests”
• They are also, at core, not standardisable commodity functions
• The nearest analogue to a forensic science “lab” is a general
hospital with its consultants, theatres and its own lab(s) and with
patients referred by GP’s
Forensic ProcessesForensic Processes
– Recovery• Scene Handling, Forensic Strategy, Exhibit Selection, Packaging and Labelling, Storage,
Tracking
• Swab, tape lift, shake out, vacuum, extract, react, excite, visualise
– Analysis• Detection, identification, discrimination, quantification
• Manual tests
• Instrumental Analysis– Gas and Liquid Chromatography, Mass Spectrometry, Spectroscopy, Comparative Microscopy, SEM,
DNA PCR and Capillary Electrophoresis, Profiling
– Evaluation• Findings, Context, alternative hypotheses, strength of support
– Investigative advice to Police• Suggestions for further submissions or tests
• Identification of possible suspects
– Report and Expert Witness• Robust, Logical, Open, Objective, within Competences
Work is often not repeatableQuality is King
Admin & Logistics must be robustSequencing can be critical
Work is often not repeatableQuality is King
Admin & Logistics must be robustSequencing can be critical
Crime OccursCrime Occurs
Police Attend Crime Scene
Police Attend Crime Scene
Crime Confirmed
Crime Confirmed
IO AppointedIO Appointed
ForensicActivitiesat CrimeScene
ForensicActivitiesat CrimeScene
FSNI Expert
Crime Scene
Manager
FSNICustomerServices
Reception
Tracking
QC
File creation
FSNICustomerServices
Reception
Tracking
QC
File creation
FSNI
Secure
StorageAmbient, Chilled, Frozen, Secure
FSNI
Secure
StorageAmbient, Chilled, Frozen, SecureEvidence
Recovery Unit
Evidence Recovery
Unit
AnalyticsAnalytics
DNADNA
FSNI Reporting Officers
FSNI Reporting Officers
TraditionalPoliceActivities
TraditionalPoliceActivities
Police
(S)IO
(S)IO
Public Prosecution ServicePublic Prosecution Service
Items
Items
InstructionsResults
Police Requirements
Original Items
FSNI Proposals
Police Reports
FSNI Reports
SpecialismsSpecialisms
CourtsCourts
FSNI Expert Witness
The NI Forensic Science FlowlineThe NI Forensic Science Flowline
PoliceSubmission
Control
Unit
PoliceSubmission
Control
Unit
From Crime to CourtFrom Crime to CourtInvestigative versus Evaluative modesInvestigative versus Evaluative modes
Attorney General: All exhibits should be handled as if they were certain to be used in
evidence
Attorney General: All exhibits should be handled as if they were certain to be used in
evidence
Investigative Mode: What is likelihood of proposition, given the evidence?Evaluative mode: What is likelihood of evidence, give the prosecution and defence propositions
Expert Witnesses should only operate in Evaluative Mode, If not, “Prosecutor’s Fallacy” may arise.
Understanding Forensic ScienceUnderstanding Forensic Science
• The laws of science V the laws of man?
• Scientific laws are discovered, not invented or legislated
• The Scientific Method is sacrosanct
• Scientists must not be dogmatic
• Scientists should challenge each other – peer review
• International collaboration on Forensic Science across
Ireland, UK, Europe and World – many specialist working
groups
Understanding Forensic ScienceUnderstanding Forensic Science
• Science more about probabilities than certainties
– Some methods highly objective / standardised, e.g. blood alcohol level
for DIC >>> very high confidence in result if procedures followed
correctly
– Others methods less discriminating/more interpretive and depend on
context and judgement / experience of expert within competence, e.g.
fibres, DNA, CDR, etc.
• Multiple findings yield a higher overall probability – Bayesian Theory
• Expert Witness is neutral; acts for the Court, not the prosecution
• The legal profession, jurors, etc. not typically science-trained
“CSI Miami Effect” also prevalent in UK: Together with bias towards “Arts & Humanities education” distorts perceptions of press, public, jurors, barristers and judges
“CSI Miami Effect” also prevalent in UK: Together with bias towards “Arts & Humanities education” distorts perceptions of press, public, jurors, barristers and judges
Tension between Science and LawTension between Science and Law
Science• Testing theory• Provisionality and uncertainty
at the core• Meaning of words is highly
specific• Findings built on previous work• Scientists not always
competent to communicate subtlety of findings in court
Law• Emphasis on legal precedent• Demand for black and white
contributions• Legal argument carried out by
people whose main skill is language manipulation
Example; What does the term “contamination” mean?Example; What does the term “contamination” mean?
Forensic Science is a processForensic Science is a process
• Lack of clarity re the roles in various parts of the
process, e.g. at scenes, in exhibit selection, etc.
• Cost pressures can impact on quality and volume
• Unusual profession in that output is often interpreted by
another profession
• Different jurisdictions manage the end to end process
differently
• No agreement on what constitutes best practice
Types of research neededTypes of research needed
• Forensic science is a multistage process
• Research needed for all stages
• Effectiveness and efficiency both important
• Where are interventions needed and when?
• Rest of this presentation will focus on technology based solutions and interpretation rather then on sociological/outcome aspects
Research and DevelopmentResearch and Development
• Blue skies research relatively rare – fingerprints and
DNA the two paradigm shifts
• R&D already takes place in instrument and material
manufacturers’ wider markets
– Chromatography, spectroscopy, microscopy, electrophoresis,
reagents, kits, etc.
• Application Development driven by issues occurring
during casework investigations
– e.g. automated searching for FDR residues in Scanning Electron
Microscopy
Tension between Validation and DevelopmentTension between Validation and Development
• Science used in court needs to be robust and forensically validated
• Validation may lag behind availability of new technology
• Wrong to prevent access to up to date science
• Courts not well served if novel technology is later shown to be
unreliable (or indeed the converse, as in Omagh)
Validation: Present situationValidation: Present situation
• Scientific approach not universally applied.
• More emphasis on precedent of tests having been used in court
before than on validation and reliability of results
• Lack of clarity of roles of various actors in the process
• Seek standardisation by ad hoc groups agreeing
• System open to criticism that best practice is not universal (e.g.
LCNDNA in Omagh Trial)
• Validity of results difficult to check
• Lack of interoperability may hinder usefulness in cross border crimes
Validation: ImplicationsValidation: Implications
• Need to validate all methods and publish
• Need to gather data to assist in interpretation
• But be aware that not everything is quantifiable
• More importance on Proficiency Testing where intrinsic
unquantifiability of variables demands heuristic approach
• Need better system than ad hoc groups to identify best practice
• What is effect of “market” on collaboration and IPR, Quality
sharing?
Regulator to play key role in validation of new methodsRegulator to play key role in validation of new methods
Providers’ Speed & Efficiency?Providers’ Speed & Efficiency?
• Only a fraction of all criminal cases are forensically examined
• Reason?
– Insufficient resources in police budgets and providers
– Many processes in joint examinations must be carefully chosen and
sequenced
– Specialists within organisations cannot readily move across specialisms
• Backlogs are common everywhere (US , UK and Continental Europe)
• Length of processes, individually and sequentially, can be months
• Law of diminishing returns versus importance of case
• Overall costs/effects of delays in CJS highly significant
R&D could also focus on ProcessesR&D could also focus on Processes
• Non-destructive, in-situ search/detection– e.g. body fluids– Joint examination-proof
• Parallel processing of Inter-related evidence types– Drugs or DNA residues in fingerprint detail
• Speed– Rapid methods– Faster processes of Location, Identification, Discrimination &
Quantification
• Evaluation– Contamination
• Contact versus environmental/random, secondary, tertiary …
• Quality– Contamination control systems and methodologies
Academic connectionsAcademic connections
• Forensic science unusual in lack of support from academic institutions (with exceptions)
• Most professions’ developments originate from academic research – medical
• Forensic science depends mostly on suppliers and commercial manufacturer sources for development
• Production pressures compete for R&D time• Forensic Market is small compared to other markets for
same instruments/technologies • Lack of dedicated funding probably the main reason for
lower than needed R&D
Ideal worldIdeal world
• R&D Objectives clearly identified • Ongoing interaction between practitioners and
academics needed• Research carried out in academic institutions to support
science produced in court and provide Development “seeds”
• Application Development honed at providers with academic backup
• Suppliers provide robust science, with options of back up when necessary
• IPR is shared for benefit of all, plus rewards for originators
Strategic Issues to be addressedStrategic Issues to be addressed
• Research funders need to be aware of value and needs in FS
• Mechanisms for interactions between various players in forensic science process needed
• Clarity needed in roles of all actors across the process as well as the various stakeholders
• Link input to outcomes and investment in a feedback loop
It would be wrong to centralise R&D and treat providers as commodity process houses.They must be fully integrated in a national FS R&D strategy
It would be wrong to centralise R&D and treat providers as commodity process houses.They must be fully integrated in a national FS R&D strategy