A Brown professor recently led a study on the shortcomings of current forensic science programs, offering recommendations to Congress about standardizing procedures and enforcing better regulatory mechanisms.
Professor of Medical Science Constantine Gatsonis co-chaired a committee appointed by the National Academy of Sciences in 2007, and presented a report, entitled "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward," to Congress last month.
Congress mandated the study after receiving several complaints from individuals in the forensic science community about discrepancies in techniques and procedures, Gatsonis said.
Over the course of eight meetings, the committee examined documents, procedures and educational programs across the country. It also received presentations from chiefs of laboratories, coroners, medical examiners and members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The report made 13 recommendations to improve forensic science, the most important being the establishment of a national institute for the discipline, according to Gatsonis.
The institution would be independent of any law enforcement agency, as would, Gatsonis hopes, all forensic labs in the future. This independence would ensure that biases would be left out of any procedures, especially in criminal cases.
A national institute would also be responsible for regulatory work, such as ensuring standards for accrediting and certifying laboratories, procedures and technicians.
Last week, Gatsonis was a special guest on National Public Radio's Science Friday and pointed to a case in which a 17-year-old high school student was certified to be a deputy coroner in Indiana.
"Typically to become a coroner you have to win an election," Gatsonis said during the show. "All-in-all that is not certification. There has to be certification developed by professional bodies and administered by mandatory standards."
Gatsonis also said typical forensic science procedures such as handwriting and bite-mark analysis and the tracing of tire marks have no grounding in any of the major sciences, such as biology and chemistry, and must be researched further.
"DNA analysis came from biology and the studying of chemicals came from chemistry," Gatsonis said. "These have been studied and evaluated. They are developed paradigms. This must now be done in forensic science."
Educational and training programs offered for forensic science must also be improved and developed further, he said. Currently, there are no opportunities in higher education available for forensic science.
Gatsonis said Brown offers only one or two classes relating to forensic science.
In the future, Gatsonis said he may speak in several classes on the issue, but currently there are no plans for a lecture or forum on forensic science.
As for Brown's future involvement in forensic science research, Gatsonis said, "It will depend on programs for funding and the overall impact of the report."
"Things move slowly," he said.