Forensic Science Strategy Contents

3Forensic science research

29.Our predecessor Committee, in its 2011 report on the Forensic Science Service (FSS), was concerned that “no formal assessment was made of the impact of closing down the FSS on forensic science R&D before the decision was made and announced”.67 The Committee’s worry was that it would be “probably unreasonable to expect private companies to increase their investment in some areas of forensic science research, particularly in fundamental research, at a time of market uncertainty”.68 The Government at that time believed that “the FSS’s financial difficulties had already seriously limited the company’s resource and capacity for research and innovation”.69

Silverman review

30.In January 2011, a month after its announcement that the FSS would be closed, the Home Office commissioned Professor Bernard Silverman, the Home Office Chief Scientific Adviser, to review forensic science research. His report, published in June 2011, noted that the procurement framework agreement (paragraph 16) included a requirement for private-sector providers, including those undertaking work formerly done by the Forensic Science Service, to carry out R&D.70 His report concluded overall, however, that the research landscape was fragmented and that improved coordination and communication was needed to drive innovation effectively. Many of the review’s recommendations, below, were subsequently implemented.

Silverman review recommendations
The Forensic Science Regulator should help establish reviews to summarise the scientific basis of forensic science techniques to help Court understanding.	The Royal Society announced in 2016 a project for creating ‘primers’ for this purpose (paragraph 50).
The Technology Strategy Board [now Innovate UK] should consider whether a Knowledge Transfer Network would be appropriate for forensic science.	One was subsequently established, known as the Forensic Science Special Interest Group (paragraph 37).
A cross-disciplinary forensic science conference should be established.	Such events were subsequently hosted by the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences in 2012, 2013 and 2015, and the Royal Society hosted their own forensics conference in early 2015.
Forensic science should be designated as a strategic research priority for the research councils.	(paragraph 32).

31.Our predecessor Committee’s 2013 follow-up report considered the results of the Silverman review and concluded that while it had “led to some positive outcomes for forensic science, it has not addressed the chronic lack of funding faced by the sector”. The Committee was “disappointed that it remains as difficult as ever for forensic science researchers to obtain funding for research”.71

32.The Committee also emphasised the importance of Prof Silverman’s recommendation for forensic science to be a strategic priority for the research councils.72 Research Councils UK directly responded to the Committee’s 2013 report, highlighting the research councils’ involvement in the Special Interest Group and other Silverman initiatives, and drawing attention to what it described as a “widespread misconception” that research councils would not fund forensic research.73

33.When in our current inquiry we raised with Professor Silverman the possible diminution of forensic science research since the closure of the Forensic Science Service, he told us that:

Quantifying the amount of research in areas is always difficult. I do not have any comparative figures on what was done then. [ … ] What comes through in the evidence that [the S&T Committee] have received, which I was very interested to read, is a mismatch between the experiences of those doing the research and the perceptions of the research councils in funding it. What is important, going forward, is that we should have clearer routes to the funding of research, so that those doing this important work understand that their proposals will be looked at. The important thing is that the right kind of research is done—that which has the most impact. [ … ] I do not sense that it is the case that research has diminished in the last few years.74

Professor Silverman told us that he had mapped academic groups undertaking fingerprint-related research across the country which, he believed, presented “quite a healthy group”.75

34.The Forensic Service Regulator thought, on the other hand, that research had suffered. Dr Gillian Tully told us:

There is less research and development done in the UK since closure of the FSS, because you cannot lose that number of researchers with that level of budget and not find that there is less research and development carried out. People differ on what impact that has had. For me, the gap in research and development is around the underpinning science and the data needed to support the interpretation of evidence, because that is something that does not have a commercial return on investment and it is also quite difficult to gain funding for in an academic sense. There has been a diminution of that kind of research.76

The Strategy

35.The Forensic Science Strategy acknowledged the need for research, at a more fundamental level, into the effectiveness of forensics:

Research into the contribution that forensic evidence makes to the investigation of crime is limited. [ … ] There is a need for in-depth analyses to enhance our understanding of the specific contribution of forensic science to the [criminal justice system] in England and Wales; for example, in terms of deterrence, increased prosecutions and convictions, and maintaining legitimacy and impartiality. We will commission further research to identify the contribution and value of forensic science to the CJS in England and Wales in light of changing crime types and digital technology.77

The Regulator highlighted a “current lack of data regarding the value of forensic science to investigations”.78 The Government Chief Scientific Adviser’s 2015 Annual Report noted that “only a small proportion of cases involving forensic science evidence reach the courtroom”.79 One reason, he speculated, may be that defendants were increasingly pleading guilty to forensic-evidenced prosecution cases before they reached court. Mike Penning told us that he would commission research to establish the reasons for this.80

36.The Regulator, and some forensic service providers, also raised a concern that the proposed ‘national approach’ would prioritise the short term needs of the police at the expense of longer term research requirements. Dr Tully told us:

The Strategy deals with only a relatively small part of the overall requirement for scientific advances and underpinning research in the field, namely the development of new methods or equipment to meet identified policing needs.81

37.Part of the problem, as the Home Office told us, is that it is “not clear where the experts think the gap is, precisely.” The Forensic Science Special Interest Group, set up in response to Professor Silverman’s 2011 review, told us that it had produced a Forensic Science Innovation Database of “challenges, contributors and stakeholders”, but had “struggled to ensure that all those within the forensic science community are aware of it. In particular it has been challenging to penetrate organisations within policing and the Home Office.”82 The Home Office, for its part, acknowledged that “many police forces who have worked alongside academic partners to submit bids for funding through [the research council funding] process have been unsuccessful”.83

38.The Home Office thought that the formation of the new ‘UK Research & Innovation’ organisation could improve the situation:

The Government Office for Science is currently working with all Government departments in response to the Nurse Review of Research Councils. One of the Review’s recommendations involves developing statements of research requirements to inform research councils’ funding priorities. The Home Office will contribute a section on forensic science which we hope will increase the amount of funding to forensic-related research.84

Professor Silverman made the same point: Forensic science was “an important area” in the Home Office’s input.85

39.While the private sector lacks a clear view of the Government’s research priorities, it also lacks sufficient incentive to fund research itself. The Strategy acknowledged this:

Research and development in forensic science is carried out by private [forensic service providers], academic institutions, police forces and the Home Office. The breadth of forensic science disciplines creates a complex landscape in which collaboration between organisations is vital. Currently the forensic market does not sufficiently incentivise investment in research and development as relatively short-term commercial contracts and the lack of clarity over requirements combine to create uncertain prospects for turning ideas into commercially viable products or services.86

There is no national mechanism for setting research priorities for the [criminal justice system]. … There are areas of research that could be of benefit to the CJS, but which have very limited prospects of generating a return on investment for the private sector.87

Mark Pearse of LGC Forensics, in a similar vein, told us:

The innovation section [in the Strategy] is the only one without any [enboldened] highlighted actions in it. It is very saddening to see that we cannot come up with any recommendations about how we can work together to foster some blue-sky research, which could be done in academia, but is being done in the private sector. [ … ] We are struggling with seeing and getting collective applications for research funding.88

The Leverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science was similarly concerned that the Strategy had “no mention of any research, or the development of a research strategy, in the proposed next steps”.89

40.Despite a raft of improvements following the 2011 Silverman review, there remains a pressing requirement for more forensics research, including into how well the science contributes to the criminal justice system. Without the benefit of the results of such research, we cannot know whether the low proportion of forensic cases reaching court is the result of defendants not wishing to contest the forensics or represents a misdirected allocation of resources. The Government should without delay commission the research promised by the minister on the reasons for the low proportion of forensic cases reaching court.

41.There is no mechanism for setting national forensic research priorities. Efforts to share data on identified research requirements, and on who is undertaking what research, are inadequate. At the same time, the private sector remains insufficiently incentivised to invest in forensics research. The Home Office, in its input to the newly created UK Research & Innovation, should press for a greater priority—and share of funding—to be given to forensics research. The Government should also work with the Forensic Science Special Interest Group to relaunch its forensic research and innovation database, to help coordinate the work of public and private forensic scientists and businesses.

Funding

42.While there are doubts about the sort of research that is needed, the Strategy does appear to hold out the prospect of increased funding for it:

A national approach to forensic service delivery could generate significant savings for police forces, which could be recycled into priority areas of research.90

Dr Tully, the Forensics Regulator, feared however that any savings could be diverted elsewhere within police budgets:

No indication is given of how this [recycling of savings] might be achieved. Without a requirement to do so, it is difficult to envisage how the 43 police forces of England and Wales, each with their own very real financial pressures and their own Policing and Crime Commissioners, might be persuaded to re-invest in research in any co-ordinated manner.91

43.We accordingly asked ministers about how any savings from the Strategy would be used. Brandon Lewis MP, the current minister, informed us that the police’s work underway on “developing a strategic proposition to transform police forensics and biometrics” would allow the police “to identify the full range of potential financial savings and options for reinvesting this money. Decisions on how to proceed will then be an operational matter for [Police & Crime Commissioners] and Chief Constables.”92

44.Any savings achieved from implementing the Forensics Strategy should not wholly be subsumed in general police budgets, but instead a significant proportion (we recommend at least half) explicitly ring-fenced and used specifically to fund the forensic science research needs identified by the Home Office and Ministry of Justice.

67 Science and Technology Committee, The Forensic Science Service, Seventh Report, Session 2010–12, HC 855

68 Ibid.

69 Home Office, Government response to S&T Committee: Forensic Science Service, Cm 8215 (October 2011)

70 Home Office, Research and Development in Forensic Science: a Review (June 2011), para 3.5

71 Science and Technology Committee, Forensic science, Second Report, Session 2013–14, HC 610

72 Ibid.

73 Science and Technology Committee, Forensic science: Research Councils UK Response, Sixth Special Report, Session 2013–14, HC 843

74 Qq119–120

75 Q119

76 Q14; See also Forensic Science Regulator (FST004), para 13

77 Forensic Science Strategy, Cm 9217, paras 45, 46

78 Forensic Science Regulator (FST004), para 8