A congressional committee investigating the state of forensic science is being led by a Brown professor. Professor of Medical Science Constantine Gatsonis, director of Brown's Center for Statistical Sciences, heads the committee that first met in January and plans to release its findings in early 2008.
Harry Edwards, former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C., circuit, co-chairs the committee, which was formed under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences. The committee's task is to assess the practice of forensic science across the nation and make recommendations on how to improve its application.
Some aspects, such as rates of error, remain unknown for forensics procedures like the analysis of hair and bite marks. Currently, there are no national standards regarding the use of forensic science.
"There's a lot of variability in forensics across various parts of the country, and Congress wanted to have somebody look into (issues such as) training, standards and quality control," he said.
Gatsonis, whose research focuses on statistics related to diagnostic tests, was chosen for the committee due to his expertise in statistics. Other committee members represent disciplines such as forensic science, law and general science.
The National Academies' Committee on Science, Technology, and Law, directed by Anne-Marie Mazza, is a subcommittee of the group investigating forensic science. According to Mazza, the committee was formed because Congress called for an investigation of forensic science in the United States and urged that certain expertise be represented on the committee.
Gatsonis said the committee, which is not the first congressional committee to look into forensics, was composed over a long period and rose "out of an appreciation for the infrastructure of forensics" in the United States.
"There were a number of people and a number of forces that contributed ... including people who do forensics, people who are advocates, people who are concerned about the accuracy of forensics, people who have been wrongly convicted and have spoken out," he said.
Congress' charge to the committee was broad. "Part of the motivation for forming this committee was to look at the scientific basis for forensics, and what has to be done to ensure that there is a proper scientific basis for these kinds of disciplines," Gatsonis said.
Among other items, the congressional mandate ordered the committee to re-examine the needs of forensics across the country, Gatsonis said.
So far, the committee has met three times and has heard from a variety of experts including lawyers, statisticians, other scientists and practitioners of forensic science, such as forensic pathologists and directors of police and F.B.I. labs.
"I think the committee is working really well. ... They have had input from a large range of interested stakeholders and are taking a thoughtful approach," Mazza said.
She said she could not comment on what its recommendations might look like.
The committee will meet again later this month and in December to work on its report. Gatsonis declined to reveal any specific findings but said he believes the report will stimulate debate.
"The committee has identified all these needs that exist, and we will be making recommendations about these," he said. "I'm sure (the report) will be noticed."
