Forensic Science Service

Written evidence submitted by the University of Strathclyde
(FSS 91)

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. Historic development of the FSS

The Forensic Science Service (FSS) has been central to virtually all of the major developments in UK forensic science for over the past 50 years and deserves the recognition for pioneering many techniques, particularly DNA profiling. Many of these developments were also of international significance. However this must be set in context. For most of their history, the FSS were either the only strategic provider of forensic science services in England and Wales or had a virtual monopoly position in forensic science activities. This position was until recently supported by the police service and the Home Office. From this privileged position they had access to information and opportunities not available to other providers. Furthermore the FSS were major financial beneficiaries of the DNA expansion program. This funding ultimately led to what could be described as ‘hyper-inflation’ in forensic activities (by laboratories and police forces) and such activity inevitably had to reduce at some time. Despite the amount of funds injected (£300M) into the forensic market by the DNA expansion fund no systematic analysis of the value of this investment has been made nor was there to my knowledge, any effective modelling or consideration of an ‘exit strategy’ when activities levelled out or decreased. Failure to plan for this may be one of the contributory factors in the current position of the FSS. However, there are many other interacting factors such as how the police structured their procurement, developments in the private forensic science market and the international financial crisis, and it would probably be impossible to disentangle the individual impact of these factors.

2. Effect on research

Notwithstanding the comments about the FSS contribution to research above, it is difficult to convey the lamentable state of research in forensic science compared to other scientific disciplines. An informal survey of research outputs carried out by the University of Strathclyde in 2008 showed that at that time the FSS were the largest publisher of peer reviewed research with around 127 publications in the previous decade . To set this in context, the Chemistry Department of the University of Strathclyde published almost the same number (124) of peer reviewed publications in 2007. In other words, the output of the most productive research organisation in the UK, over a 10 year period, equated to a single department in a single university in a single year. This survey also looked at 35 universities that teach forensic science and showed that almost half of them had never published a single peer reviewed paper during the period surveyed and the average rate of publication was 2 papers per decade. Whilst publications are only one aspect of research and there are other indicators that could be used, this information is sufficient to identify the dramatic differences between research in the forensic world compared to the general scientific world. Virtually none of the current research councils in the UK supports forensic science research. A notable change has recently taken place in the USA where a landmark report by the National Academy of Sciences [1] has identified this issue and its impact on crime investigation and criminal justice. This has resulted in major political attention and dedicated funding for research.

In addition to funding, a systematic and effective research programme in forensic science will require the closely structured and mature collaboration between academic institutions, forensic science providers, the police service and others in the criminal justice system. This situation does not exist at present in England and Wales. Academic institutions cannot be engaged due to lack of funding and neither the forensic science providers nor the police service have demonstrated sufficient understanding of research programmes of this type.

It is difficult to imagine that the research situation will be improved by the loss of the FSS or their replacement by a privatised organisation. Without funding sources and effective collaborations with academic institutions it seems likely that future research in a private market will focus on short term economic benefits for the individual companies.

3. Future impact of closure

During the past 20 years there have been many technological developments in forensic science as well as structural changes to the industry and new legislation. This makes it extremely difficult to predict the impact of this closure. Nevertheless most forensic scientists believe (as I do) that the winding down of the FSS is an undesirable outcome that will impact adversely on criminal justice. Some of the undesirable issues that may arise include:

· Fragmentation of evidence when multiple providers are used

· Poorer communication between users and providers

· Less information sharing between providers and the police service

· Less development of effective working practices

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

4. There is open discussion about police service intentions to carry out more forensic testing in house although direct evidence of the true extent of this is difficult to obtain. Where this work is carried out under the appropriate international standards, by competent staff, in police organisations that understand scientific standards, there should be no significant implications for criminal justice. If appropriate standards are not used for in house examinations by police forces this would result in a two tier system of standards that would not be in the interests of justice and unfair to forensic science providers. It should also be noted that one of the main reasons for the introduction of formal quality standards in forensic science was high profile miscarriages of justice. Were ‘in-sourcing’ to take place without the implementation of formal quality standards I would have serious concerns about the implications of this. Furthermore, it is not a trivial matter for the police service to manage scientific standards. Unlike, for example, the health sector who have a scientific knowledge base and relevant skills, the police lack the core knowledge in science. Although there may be individuals in the police service who are scientifically qualified, there are very few practicing professional scientists.

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?

5. The market appears to be extremely fragile, uncertain and immature. It is essential that strategic capacity and a capability to provide forensic services are maintained but it is unclear at this stage how this is to be established. The significance of a wholly privatized forensic market for criminal justice and how this will develop in economic and scientific terms is impossible to predict. The MacFarlane report [2] , which recommended privatisation of the FSS stated:

‘The Review recommends this it would be in the interests of the Criminal Justice System for the FSS to become private sector classified. We further recommend that a programme of work be carried out to ensure that this is undertaken in the most appropriate manner, safeguarding the needs of the public sector customers.‘

The programme of work referred to was presumably to ‘manage’ the FSS into the private sector and this has either not been implemented or failed. I do not believe that one can legitimately object to privatisation in principle since private provision of services exists in many other areas of society, including the criminal justice system. Furthermore the main private forensic science providers appear to have served the needs of the CJS to date. There also appear to have been valuable benefits that have been forthcoming in England and Wales, such as very fast turnaround times for products and services. This contrasts with most public sector laboratories around the world that have very large backlogs.

I would consider it essential that a wholly privatised forensic science market was effectively regulated. The remit of the Forensic Science Regulator is confined to quality standards and a great deal of positive work has been done here. Quality standards are essential to maintain the integrity of forensic work for the criminal justice system they are not sufficient on their own. In a wholly private market, it is likely that the development of new products and services will be focussed on competitive advantage as is legitimate for any private enterprise. However, competitive advantage and benefits to the criminal justice system will not always go hand in hand. There are analogies with the pharmaceutical industry in that a significant proportion of new drugs developed have very limited therapeutic benefit. Furthermore, users of such products are likely to be subject to contradictory marketing material which will make it difficult to establish true benefits. Another important aspect of this is how the police use forensic science. There have been many reports [3] , [4] over the past 30 years that show that the police service does not use forensic science particularly well and that with certain exceptions (e.g. Senior Investigating Officers, Senior Crime Scene Managers) knowledge of forensic science within the police service is poor. Given these issues, I believe that regulation must extend to how products are marketed, including accuracy and transparency of technical specification and fitness for purpose.

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

6. The FSS has gradually developed over the past two decades from traditional public sector organisation, then as a government agency to their current position. They have been subject to many reviews primarily to deal with constantly increasing demands of the police and the courts but also to improve how their services were provided. In their original form as a public sector organisation their users could make virtually any demand they wished with little responsibility for the consequences of this in organisational terms. More recently, as a government agency they were in a better position to control their workload and demands by charging for services and this led to very significant improvements. I have observed this process from a number of standpoints, as a practising forensic scientist, as a senior manager in the police service (as a purchaser of forensic science) and in my current position. The direct link between charging and service provision compels dialogue and keep in check the previous poor practice by the police and forensic science providers. At its best it results in a mature collaborative approach between investigators and scientists that clarifies priorities, desired outcomes and manages risk. In my view this strikes the best balance the relationship between the police as investigators and scientists as independent experts.

This question of what alternatives to privatisation of the FSS are possible is a complex one that contains elements outside my area of expertise. Whilst I am not in a position to provide an alternative solution I can describe some of the characteristics that any alternative must take into account as well as areas that are essential to be managed or avoided. Any future configuration for the FSS and the private market as a whole must in my view:

· Fundamentally serve the interests of justice in providing independent and objective evidence

· Maintain a scope and service provision that is fit for purpose

· Engender an effective, mature business like relationship between providers and users. (This relationship has deteriorated in recent years.)

· Be fair to all providers of forensic science

· Support the collaborative development of forensic science practices at a between providers, the police service and other criminal justice stakeholders.

· Address the major deficit in research and knowledge exchange in forensic science

Outcomes that need be avoided include any that might lead to:

· Consumer driven or exclusively financially driven purchases of forensic science services by users

· Anti-competitive behaviour, cartels etc

· The production of misleading information in communication or marketing, of costs, or potential benefits of services and products.

Professor Jim Fraser

Director, Centre for Forensic Science

University of Strathclyde

22 February 2011