Episode 546: Forensic Science Deep Dive Discussion
Added 2020-10-18 04:40:47 +0000 UTCResources:
Ten Years Later: The Lasting Impact of the 2009 NAS Report
A call for more science in forensic science
Science organizations renew call for independent U.S. committee on forensics
We Must Strengthen the "Science" in Forensic Science - Scientific American Blog Network
Jeff Sessions Is Keeping Junk Science in America's Courts
Another Reprieve for Expert Testimony That Is Anything But
Junk Science Is Being Used to Convict Innocent People - ATTN:
The Fascinating Physics of Blood Splatters
Reversing the legacy of junk science in the courtroom
Forensics gone wrong: When DNA snares the innocent
Should We Trust Forensic Science?
Lives in Balance, Texas Leads Scrutiny of Bite-Mark Forensics
Forensic science is biased and inaccurate, but juries believe it and convict the innocent.
Serrita Mitchell DNA: The unsettling, underregulated world of crime labs.
Episode 94: The Goofy Pseudoscience Copaganda of TV Forensics
The Appeal Podcast: The Pseudoscience behind Forensic Science
Comments
My wife worked as a CSI in the UK for a number of years and it was fascinating to see her (enraged) reaction to this episode
B
2020-10-20 05:12:35 +0000 UTCFYI international tourists get fingerprinted routinely upon entry to various countries. The USA is absolutely one of them. So I’m in one of the numerous finger print databases.
kyi561
2020-10-19 22:31:45 +0000 UTCWe don't have a justice system, just sanctioned vengeance to lash out at anyone unfortunate enough to wind up in the crosshairs of Authorities whose only concern is a "conviction" regardless of guilt. Justice could accidentally be a byproduct of our conviction system.
Asymetra
2020-10-18 21:51:38 +0000 UTCForensic biologist (DNA) here and just, yeah. But also all these now defunct "sciences" were warned again and brought to our attention in training 16 years ago. So maybe lay persons didn't know this but hard science forensic scientists do. And after the NAS all units in my statewide lab system addressed the points and made changes. And our national accreditation and certification bodies also addressed and made new guidelines, etc. I guess I hope other states also did this. And of all the issues with DNA test could have been presented, crime scene (often not actual scientists) collection was chosen. Which isn't a DNA thing.
Julie Mauer
2020-10-18 15:59:24 +0000 UTCoh, and an anecdote on DNA contamination that you may find amusing and interesting: several years ago, the DNA of one woman started showing up at unconnected crime scenes, including murder cases, in Germany. It grew into the mystery of the "Phantom von Heilbronn", a super-villaness whose traces were found all over the country (and I believe abroad) and had investigators utterly perplexed. Until, one day, the DNA could be matched to the sample of a woman working at the lab that produced testing swabs...
Derek Ott
2020-10-18 10:58:43 +0000 UTCguys, love you from the bottom of my heart, but I have one major objection to your criticism of "forensic science": wanting to prove what your believe to be true is "hypothesis testing" and fundamental to the scientific method. It's actually bad research to run an experiment to "just see what happens" because you give up control over confounding factors. That being said, it's likewise bad science to stick to your hypothesis no matter what and bend over backwards reasoning why your data still supports your assumptions, even if it requires a growing leap of faith. It is one of the most common pitfalls of "real" scientists that tunnel vision blocks you from viewing your findings from a completely different angle. But the worst thing that can happen most times is that you have a Heureka moment where everything falls into place with a better explanation - or that you are somewhat shamefully proven wrong by others - but it normally won't get anyone falsely sentenced. Cheers, Derek
Derek Ott
2020-10-18 09:39:42 +0000 UTC
