Putting the Science in Forensic Science

I am impressed with the valuable tool DNA profiling has provided to our profession. However, as scientists we must be concerned with the Criminal Justice System's over-reliance of this tool. The use of DNA to convict or clear individuals is reaching Orwillian proportions. There exists a common belief that, if the DNA matches you are guilty, if it does not match, you are innocent. In essence, machines are determining guilt or innocence. This trend should be alarming to all forensic scientists. To paraphrase Oliver Schroder, former President of the American Academy of Forensic Science, “when one comes to rely solely on technology, we have mechanized the institution of Justice, and Justice above all else must remain a human institution”. As forensic scientists, we must follow the doctrine of the scientific method, that is: obtain data, evaluate the data, form a hypothesis, and validate that hypothesis. Unfortunately, with the advances in DNA technology, many crime laboratories and the justice system are forsaking this scientific approach in criminal investigations. Simply put, they are institutionalizing the system. Dr. De Forest, so eloquently states, "The emphasis must be on thinking and seeing thephysical evidence aspects of a case in the totality of the event. Scientific problem solving, not technology, needs to drive our approach to the case." I can appreciate society’s enthusiasm for DNA technology. However, society must also be enlightened to the dangers of relying solely on technology to improve justice.

So, what is our responsibility to the profession? Greg Matheson states, " We can choose to become the technicians that operate the machines or we can be criminalists that investigate crimes." I believe forensic science is still and must remain a thinking person's profession. As forensic scientists, we must continue to voice the philosophy that the training, skills and dedication of the forensic scientist are the backbone of the profession. We must make the system understand, technology is the tool, but the chemist is the artist. Furthermore, we must act to prevent the practice of non-scientists dictating the significance and interpretation of physical evidence. Failure on our part to maintain the scientific principles of forensic investigation will further relegate us to the role of mere technician.