Forensic Science Service
Written evidence submitted by Andrea Grout (FSS 07)
What will be the impact of the closure of the Forensic Science Service on forensic science and on the future development of forensic science in the UK?
1. The UK is currently the proud world leader in the field of forensic science, and the FSS is a huge contributor to this leading status, via commitment to world-renowned research, as well as decades of casework experience. Organisations around the world strive towards the high standards set by the FSS. The FSS also works in partnership with organisations around the world, to try to further improve aspects of the forensic science community with innovative research and product development.
2. Closure of the forensic science service will shake the foundations of the forensic science community. The inevitable uncertainty in the forensic science community that will follow, and lack of guidance, from a leading organisation made up of decades of experience, will devastate the organisations that remain. The workload alone will be too large for existing private suppliers to cope with, even with Police forces increasing their levels of in-sourcing. Not to mention certain specialist disciplines which are currently only provided by the FSS. It is unacceptable to lose certain scientific disciplines altogether, and swamp the market with the remaining workload to the point where the criminal justice system will suffer. Certain types of work will not be able to be done due to the loss of expertise. Other work may not get done simply because there is not the capacity to do it. In addition, it is plausible that the ‘market’ may reach a point where work will only be done if the price is paid (for example, victims of crime who can afford to pay will receive forensic services, but others who cannot afford to pay will not receive appropriate forensic services).
3. From a development point of view, forensic science in the UK will suffer greatly, and therefore forensic science world-wide will also suffer. In the same way that the forensic casework carried out by the FSS (60% market share) is too large to be simply ‘picked up’ by alternative providers, closure of the FSS will leave a gaping chasm in the research arena. It is unreasonable to expect the current levels of research and development to continue after closure of the FSS (e.g. via universities and other institutions). Research and development also requires the knowledge and expertise of not only those staff who work in the research and development departments, but other operational scientists with casework experience. Together, all this knowledge and experience drives projects forwards, and develops new techniques, products, and methods which benefit all providers who carry out operational work, as well as improving upon existing standards and processes.
What will be the implications of the closure on the quality and impartiality of forensic evidence used in the criminal justice system?
4. The quality of evidence that enters any forensic science laboratory is beyond the scientists control. It is dependent on the quality of the crime scene management and police work that precedes the scientist in the forensic chain. In the same way, the quality of scientific evidence that leaves the forensic science laboratory, and ends up at the final point of the forensic chain, (the courtroom), lies ultimately with the scientists who do the work. The quality of evidence in court is therefore entirely dependent on the integrity, knowledge, expertise and experience of the individuals who carry out the work, and is of utmost importance when considering both quality and impartiality. What makes the FSS the world leading forensic science organisation is exactly that, its people.
5. What will happen to the hundreds of highly experienced scientists upon closure of the FSS? Some may be able to take up employment with a ‘competing’ supplier such as LGC or Orchid Cellmark. Some may become employed directly by police forces that are expanding their pool of scientific staff in order to cope with higher levels of in-sourcing. But many will be lost from the field of forensic science completely. With loss of these people, the UK forensic science market loses some of its most highly experienced forensic scientists. To lose decades of valuable experience, will set the UK forensic science market back many years, and will have a harmful impact on both the UK and global forensic science community.
6. The government plan to allow police forces to in-source an even larger proportion of their forensic work than they currently do already, is a nonsensical one in terms of quality and impartiality. How can forensic scientists be expected to hold existing high levels of impartiality, if instead of working as part of an independent organisation, their direct employer is a police force? The conflict of interest alone is enough to impact on impartiality to an extent that would lower standards across the entire market. Such backward steps cannot be tolerated in our criminal justice system.
7. Being the founding forensic science organisation, as well as the largest of its kind, The FSS has always led the pathway in quality standards. Whilst competition from alternative forensic suppliers can be a positive driver in quality standards, the FSS has always carried the responsibility of not just maintaining high standards, but pushing forward with improvements and setting a world wide example. With closure of the FSS, where will this responsibility lie? It is unsafe and irresponsible to assume that this position of responsibility will be taken up by one of the remaining alternative forensic science providers.
What is the financial position of the Forensic Science Service?
8. Although some aspects of forensic science provision can draw financial profit, there are many complex and specialist scientific disciplines which are quite the opposite. These specialist aspects of forensic science are vital in real life casework, as well as cold cases, despite being deemed as a financial burden to any private sector forensic provider. It is these specialist disciplines which require the highest levels of expertise, but also require financial support to maintain.
9. The FSS has always proudly provided all types of forensic discipline, in order to best serve the CJS, whether profitable or not. Private sector providers have however carefully selected only profitable areas of forensic science, and left specialist, costly disciplines to the trusty supplier of last resort, The FSS. Inevitably, the FSS has therefore suffered financially where other private companies may seem to have succeeded. Clearly, overall forensic science is not a profitable or sustainable business arena. It is an essential service, requiring government support, in order to serve its sole function: to contribute toward a successful criminal justice system.
10. Forensic science is a fundamental service that underpins criminal justice. Whilst it may seem like a financial drain on the UK government, the devastating implications of neglecting to invest in forensic science are in fact far more costly. It is morally impossible to put a price on solving crime.
What is the state of, and prospects for, the forensics market in the UK, specifically whether the private sector can carry out the work currently done by the Forensic Science Service and the volume and nature of the forensic work carried out by police forces?
11. The current UK forensic science ‘market’ is fundamentally flawed. It is by no means stable, but its current apparent stability comes from the existence of the FSS. The FSS provides certain services that other private companies neglect due to their costly nature. Without the FSS, not only will there be a huge gap in the services provided by those companies that remain, but the workload left behind by the FSS is too great for the current market to cope with. The private sector does not have the experience, skills, or capacity to deliver the work currently done by the FSS. Nor do these companies have the financial potential to expand their current staff and services by taking on high numbers of skilled experienced staff from the FSS. Even if police forces greatly increased their own in-sourcing (which as previously mentioned, brings a host of problems in itself), the work left behind by the FSS would still not be taken-up, to the level required to sustain the current high standards in the UK forensic science community.
12. Not to mention, the cost incurred to police forces in setting up their own forensic laboratories and attempting to undertake services in which they have no expertise. Not only would this be a huge financial burden (and police forces cannot afford to reduce their spending on solving crime), but the subsequent consequences to the CJS would be devastating. Insufficient quality standards and lack of impartiality would result in fewer cases being court-worthy, leading to wasted time and money. It may seem like a reduction in cost at first, but is in fact completely inefficient to try to lower the initial spend, but then have cases subsequently rejected in court due to lack of appropriate quality, impartiality and expertise. It is far better to ensure that a slightly higher initial investment is rewarded by receiving a fair result in court. Compromising on quality, impartiality and expertise in order to try to drive costs down, is in fact counter-productive, leading to waste, and lower conviction rates, and terrible miscarriages of justice.
What are the alternatives to winding-down the Forensic Science Service?
13. Understandably, the FSS cannot continue in its current form. It is underpinning a falsified ‘market’, inevitably to its own detriment, despite the fact that the government was advised against converting the FSS to a gov-co, and that its demise would inevitably follow. But, with the situation as it is, something needs to change.
The main alternative to winding-down the FSS, is to save the name, status and reputation of this world leading organisation, but to heavily strip back on non-operational staff and processes. Whilst support staff are essential to the effective running of the FSS’ current products and services, there is an extremely top-heavy management structure, and despite the excellent work of the recent Business Transformation programme, there are still areas of the business which could be more streamlined. Had the Business Transformation program been allowed to see through to completion, the FSS could have potential to be much smoother running as a business, and recoup some of its financial losses.
14. However, it is important to remember that the FSS has never received the help necessary to successfully completely transition from being a civil service, to a private business. This is partly due to the fact that, no matter how much the government tries to manufacture a forced forensic ‘market’, the current ‘market’ is not sustainable. Furthermore, forensic science as a whole is not profitable as a business market, because the potentially profitable areas of forensics will always be counteracted by areas that lose money, due to their costly nature (i.e. in a balanced organisation that provides the wide range of forensic services required by the CJS, profit making disciplines will always be counterbalanced by loss-making disciplines). This is why the past, and future of forensic science, has been, and should remain, a service, not a business.
So far as they are known, are the arrangements for closing down the Forensic Science Service, making staff redundant and selling its assets adequate?
15. Making staff redundancies, in some instances, will be an adequate step. There may be a very small number of staff members within the FSS who will accept a change in career, willingly leave the forensic science market entirely, take retirement and suchlike. The vast majority though, will be extremely disappointed with redundancy, no matter how ‘fair’ the redundancy package may be. It is not simply the loss of a job that matters in these circumstances. It is a position serving in a world renowned organisation, helping to play a part towards a larger goal: serving criminal justice. And although some staff may find alternative positions within the field of forensic science (working in the private sector or for police forces etc), most will still be hugely concerned for the future of forensic science in the UK, and may be forced out of it due to lack of alternative employment within the forensic science field.
16. As previously mentioned, the skills, experience, expertise and knowledge of the people, is what makes forensic science what it is. Making FSS staff redundant, risks losing a huge chunk of the current level of knowledge and expertise currently available in the UK forensic science community. By nature, forensic science is a field where young graduates will always be interested and intrigued by a potential career, but without experienced senior experts to learn from, and gain experience of their own, any text book knowledge they may have cannot be adequately applied. Thus, the cycle of knowledge and experience required to keep the field of forensic science moving forward, will unfortunately be broken.
17. With regards to selling the ‘assets’ of the FSS, perhaps this may prove a successful short term solution to the provision of forensic science in the UK. But without long term commitment to improvement and innovation, these assets will quickly become dated, and by nature, will no longer be ‘assets’. Whilst the basic science involved in many areas of forensics remains relatively unchanged, the requirement for continual improvement and innovation is what keeps forensic science as such a valuable tool in fighting crime, and serving the criminal justice system. For example, development of improved products to help recover evidence from crime scenes and maximise the potential evidence extracted from it. Take something as simple as a swab. What use is advanced DNA techniques, if instead of the latest swab technology, police forces chose to cut costs and utilise out-dated, cheaper swabs at crime scenes. The results obtained in the forensic science laboratory will only ever be as good as the evidence submitted to them by the police forces from crime scenes. This is just one example of where cutting costs, actually costs more, as fewer useful results are obtained, and overall, the CJS suffers.
18. Currently, the FSS leads the way in striving to ensure that the various ‘market-players’ work together to ensure that forensic innovation remains a few steps ahead of criminal innovation. Without the FSS, the main driver towards continual improvement and innovation is lost, and the field of forensic science as a whole will slow, potentially to a halt, only to be quickly overtaken by ever-evolving criminal activity.
Declaration of interests:
19. I, Andrea Grout, am a forensic scientist, working for The Forensic Science Service London laboratory since 2007.
Andrea Grout
24 January 2011
|
