Forensic Science Service

Written evidence submitted by the Statistics and Law working group of the Royal Statistical Society (FSS 39)

Questions to be considered

· What will be the impact of the closure of the FSS on forensic science and on the future development of forensic science in the UK?

· What will be the implications of the closure on the quality and impartiality of forensic evidence used in the criminal justice system?

· What is the financial position of the Forensic Science Service?

· 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 FSS. The volume and nature of the forensic work carried out by police forces will also be examined in this light.

· What are the alternatives to winding down the Forensic Science Service?

· So far as they are known, are the arrangements for closing down the FSS, making staff redundant and selling its assets adequate?

The first comments relate to the first and second bullet points:

1. What will be the impact of the closure of the FSS on forensic science and on the future development of forensic science in the UK?

2. What will be the implications of the closure on the quality and impartiality of forensic evidence used in the criminal justice system?

1 If the proposed closure of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) goes ahead it will severely damage the research and development of scientific methods for the successful investigation of crime and the logical evaluation and interpretation of evidence.

2 The FSS has consistently provided excellent researchers in their employ with the time and space to develop their ideas with the subsequent long-term benefits to the administration of justice. The most notable example is the introduction of forensic DNA as a service. Peter Gill and others at the FSS took the research of Sir Alec Jeffreys and brought it into practice.

3 At present, the FSS employs several qualified statisticians, Dr Ian Evett, Dr Roberto Puch-Solis, Dr Lauren Rodgers and Dr Anjali Mazumder, to support practice and research. The statisticians are members of the statistics and interpretation group, which also have two engineers, Ismael Mateos-Garcia and James Skerrett, and a biologist, Amanda Kirkham. As far as we know, LGC forensics employs a statistician but we are not aware whether other forensic providers do employ statisticians. Statistics is important as a subject because it is the science that enables an objective assessment of evidence in the presence of uncertainty.

4 The group has led the way in methods for evidence interpretation and evaluation leading to the current Case Assessment and Interpretation procedures in place today. At present the Statistics and Interpretation group, following the experience of Ian Evett and Peter Gill, is working in bringing academic research into practice in two main forensic evidence types: DNA and fingerprints. Without the close connection to casework, it is unlikely for the group to have the insight to complement academic research and to develop systems that are fit for casework. This is important for the taxpayer because the benefits of investment on research is realised in practice. It is difficult to see such work being enabled in a commercial environment.

5 The ability for serendipitous ideas to emerge will be severely curtailed by the closure of the FSS. The FSS is a partner in a 1.2M euro bid to the European Union under the Advanced Forensic Framework initiative. There are 15 partners in the bid from universities and national forensic science laboratories in several European countries. None is a commercial organisation. Again it is difficult to see a commercial provider or a police service devoting resources to such an activity.

6 We are aware there is a review of research and development in forensic science under the chairmanship of Professor Bernard Silverman. One outcome may be the creation of a fund to which bids may be made for support for particular projects, rather like the responsive mode budget of the research councils. Another outcome may be a call for bids for particular projects. Neither satisfies the provision of time and space which is required for ideas to be incubated and flourish. Large companies like BP can afford research divisions with such time and space. The market size in forensic science precludes the creation of such divisions within the private sector.

7 In response to the fifth question:

‘What are the alternatives to winding down the Forensic Science Service? ‘

the Committee may like to consider the US National Academy of Sciences report in 2009 on forensic science. This report is currently the subject of a bill presented to the US by Senator Leahy:

"To establish an Office of Forensic Science and a Forensic Science Board, to strengthen and promote confidence in the criminal justice system by ensuring consistency and scientific validity in forensic testing, and for other purposes."

‘Title IV: _ RESEARCH’ in the bill provides very relevant commentary on research strategy and priorities.

8 The creation of an independent national forensic science institute with core funding from the public purse is the only way in which research and development can be continued. Recommendation 1 of the 2009 NAS report from the USA should be studied carefully and a version tailored to the UK legal system developed. It is given below for ease of reference, with the immediately following commentary from the report.

9 Recommendation 1:

To promote the development of forensic science into a mature field of

multidisciplinary research and practice, founded on the systematic collection and

analysis of relevant data, Congress should establish and appropriate funds for an

independent federal entity, the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS). NIFS should have a full-time administrator and an advisory board with expertise in research and education, the forensic science disciplines, physical and life sciences, forensic pathology, engineering, information technology, measurements and standards, testing and evaluation, law, national security, and public policy.

NIFS should focus on:

(a) establishing and enforcing best practices for forensic science professionals and laboratories;

(b) establishing standards for the mandatory accreditation of forensic science

laboratories and the mandatory certification of forensic scientists and

medical examiners/forensic pathologists-and identifying the

entity/entities that will develop and implement accreditation and

certification;

(c) promoting scholarly, competitive peer-reviewed research and technical

development in the forensic science disciplines and forensic medicine;

(d) developing a strategy to improve forensic science research and educational

programs, including forensic pathology;

(e) establishing a strategy, based on accurate data on the forensic science

community, for the efficient allocation of available funds to give strong

support to forensic methodologies and practices in addition to DNA

analysis;

(f) funding state and local forensic science agencies, independent research

projects, and educational programs as recommended in this report, with

conditions that aim to advance the credibility and reliability of the forensic

science disciplines;

(g) overseeing education standards and the accreditation of forensic science

programs in colleges and universities;

(h) developing programs to improve understanding of the forensic science

disciplines and their limitations within legal systems; and

(i) assessing the development and introduction of new technologies in forensic

investigations, including a comparison of new technologies with former

ones.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

10 The benefits that will flow from a strong, independent, strategic, coherent, and well-funded federal program to support and oversee the forensic science disciplines in this country are clear: The Nation will (1) bolster its ability to more accurately identify true perpetrators and exclude those who are falsely accused; (2) improve its ability to effectively respond to, attribute, and prosecute threats to homeland security; and (3) reduce the likelihood of convictions resting on inaccurate data. Moreover, establishing the scientific foundation of the forensic science disciplines, providing better education and training, and requiring certification and accreditation will position the forensic science community to take advantage of current and future scientific advances.

11 The creation of a new federal entity undoubtedly will pose challenges, not the least of which will be budgetary constraints. The committee is not in a position to estimate how much it will cost to implement the recommendations in this report; this is a matter best left to the expertise of the Congressional Budget Office. What is clear, however, is that Congress must take aggressive action if the worst ills of the forensic science community are to be cured. Political and budgetary concerns should not deter bold, creative, and forward-looking action, because the country cannot afford to suffer the consequences of inaction. It will also take time and patience to implement the

recommendations in this report. But this is true with any large, complex, important, and challenging enterprise.

12 The committee strongly believes that the greatest hope for success in this enterprise will come with the creation of the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) to oversee and direct the forensic science community. The remaining recommendations in this report are crucially tied to the creation of NIFS. However, each recommendation is a separate, essential piece of the plan to improve the forensic science community in the United States. Therefore, even if the creation of NIFS is forestalled, the committee vigorously supports the adoption of the core ideas and principles embedded in each of the following recommendations.

13 Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community; Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, National Research Council

14 This recommendation, and indeed the rest of this report, provides an ideal answer to question 5: ‘what are the alternatives to winding down the FSS?’

15 There is no conflict of interest so far as the Society is aware.

Colin Aitken

Chairman, Royal Statistical Society

Statistics and Law working group

11 February 2011