The NAS Critique

• In 2009, Federal Judge Harry T. Edwards presented a lecture to the Sandra Day O'Connor School of Law at Arizona State University with a scathing criticism of the state of forensic science in the United States. Edwards was the co-chair of the National Academy of Sciences Forensic Science Committee. Among the greatest concerns in the field, Edwards said, was the fact that many common forensic science procedures are not validated by sufficient scientific research. Methods that have not been validated by sufficient research can lead to erroneous conclusions. His other criticism was that forensic scientists do not have a sufficient degree of independence from the law enforcement agencies they serve. Judge Edwards said, "The simple point is that forensic scientists should function independently of law enforcement administrators." This situation, according to Edwards, subjects scientists to potential occupational pressures that could compromise their objectivity and even render unfair verdicts.
  
  

Call for a New Agency

• A report in the same year by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that faulty conclusions reached by forensic scientists who serve at witnesses in court may well have led to convictions of innocent people. The problem, as stated in the report, cannot be rectified on a case by case basis in court challenges. The NAS recommended a sweeping Congressional action mandating consistent, national, independent oversight of forensic science, as well as systematic research to validate forensic science methods.
  
  

The North Carolina Scandal

• One egregious example of bias combined with lack of scientific independence occurred in the 2011 North Carolina case, wherein an audit of the State Bureau of Investigation's crime lab discovered more than 200 cases of "distorted" evidence that called at least 80 convictions into question. This audit happened in response to a reversal of the conviction of Greg Taylor, wrongly convicted of murder, who was incarcerated for 17 years.
  
  

Potential Resistance

• Among the forensic fields that have been called into question for lack of validating research are fingerprinting, tool marking, gun ballistics, odontology, tire mark evidence and blood spattering. If further research sheds doubt on current methods, not only will some methods need to be discarded, but existing convictions based on these methods may be subject to appeal. This could lead to resistance to an independent agency to oversee such research.
  
  

Where the Debate May Shift

• Calls for an independent agency, tentatively named the National Institute for Forensic Science (NIFS) has led to a public discussion about how such an agency would be organized and run, as well as how much power a National Institute would wield over state forensics agencies. These debates may eclipse the debate over the conclusions of the NAS, because they involve legislation, monetary support and competing agencies.