R&D in Forensic Science A Provider’s Perspective

R&D in Forensic ScienceA Provider’s Perspective Stan Brown, CEO Forensic Science Northern Ireland With thanks to Dr Sheila Willis, Director of FSL, & Chair of AFSP, for her input

FSNI Overview • Executive Agency of NIO – Independent from Police • International reputation forged in NI’s “Troubles” • >215 staff (>65% scientists) • Broader range of forensic specialist disciplines than most other single labs • Road Traffic Collisions (RTC) • Special Fingerprint Unit (SFU) • Physical Methods: Glass, Fibres, Paint, Toolmarks, Foot/Tyre Marks • Questioned Documents & Thin Films • Firearms • Microchemistry • Fires & Explosives • Alcohol, Drugs & Toxicology • DNA • Biology • Electronics

Criticisms from NAS report • Highly critical of lack of scientific validation of the traditional techniques in use • Critical of lack of development of science in Law Enforcement agencies • Critical of specialist groups as source of standardisation • But; Naïve view that all science should be probabilistically quantifiable

DNA • NAS report less critical in relation to DNA but lots of issues to be resolved • Today’s technology is so sensitive that can produce matching profiles without knowing type of cellular material that is source of DNA. • Urgent need for transfer and persistence studies for DNA • Ability to put a numerical match probability on a profile can wrongly dominate the significant but unquantifiable variables in relation to its source • Sometimes seen by police as magic bullet

Backdrop: UK V US? • All main UK providers are independent from police • All are accredited to ISO 17025;2005 and are inspected at least annually • All collaborate in specialist working groups and proficiency trials • All have QMS which demand staff competences to be maintained • All work is peer reviewed (+ dip sampled) • All UK providers also collaborate within ENFSI • Regulator in place and strongly supported by all main providers • US & UK adversarial systems V Europe inquisitorial • US deal with science more as stand-alone

How to give rigour to the unquantifiable? • When is Expert Opinion “subjective” and when is it robust, objective, logical and transparent? • Inherent variability of people, scenes and exhibits means that there are many uncontrolled variables directly affecting the evidence that may be recovered. • Attempts are made to add rigour using analyses such as fibre populations, persistence studies, etc. but specific circumstances, local effects, irreducibly prevent accurate and meaningful attribution of probabilities to some key factors • Therefore the overall probability in any one case may not be quantifiable • Can we instead “validate” the expert judgement of individual scientists and of their collective interpretative approach ?

Backdrop: The Term Laboratory? • Those not directly involved in the delivery of forensic science often misconstrue the providing organisations as primarily “labs” • This is very misleading as it implies it is simply “boffins” or “technicians” doing “tests” • Many of the critical processes involved are not essentially laboratory based or even “tests” • They are also, at core, not standardisable commodity functions • The nearest analogue to a forensic science “lab” is a general hospital with its consultants, theatres and its own lab(s) and with patients referred by GP’s

Forensic Processes • Recovery • Scene Handling, Forensic Strategy, Exhibit Selection, Packaging and Labelling, Storage, Tracking • Swab, tape lift, shake out, vacuum, extract, react, excite, visualise • Analysis • Detection, identification, discrimination, quantification • Manual tests • Instrumental Analysis • Gas and Liquid Chromatography, Mass Spectrometry, Spectroscopy, Comparative Microscopy, SEM, DNA PCR and Capillary Electrophoresis, Profiling • Evaluation • Findings, Context, alternative hypotheses, strength of support • Investigative advice to Police • Suggestions for further submissions or tests • Identification of possible suspects • Report and Expert Witness • Robust, Logical, Open, Objective, within Competences Work is often not repeatable Quality is King Admin & Logistics must be robust Sequencing can be critical

The NI Forensic Science Flowline Crime Occurs ForensicActivitiesat CrimeScene FSNI Secure Storage Ambient, Chilled, Frozen, Secure Police Attend Crime Scene Items Police Submission Control Unit FSNICustomerServices Reception Tracking QC File creation FSNI Expert Crime Confirmed Crime Scene Manager Items IO Appointed InstructionsResults Evidence Recovery Unit FSNI Reporting Officers Police Requirements Analytics FSNI Proposals (S)IO (S)IO TraditionalPoliceActivities DNA FSNI Reports Police Reports Specialisms Police Original Items FSNI Expert Witness Courts Public Prosecution Service

From Crime to CourtInvestigative versus Evaluative modes Attorney General: All exhibits should be handled as if they were certain to be used in evidence Investigative Mode: What is likelihood of proposition, given the evidence? Evaluative mode: What is likelihood of evidence, give the prosecution and defence propositions Expert Witnesses should only operate in Evaluative Mode, If not, “Prosecutor’s Fallacy” may arise.

Understanding Forensic Science • The laws of science V the laws of man? • Scientific laws are discovered, not invented or legislated • The Scientific Method is sacrosanct • Scientists must not be dogmatic • Scientists should challenge each other – peer review • International collaboration on Forensic Science across Ireland, UK, Europe and World – many specialist working groups

Understanding Forensic Science • Science more about probabilities than certainties • Some methods highly objective / standardised, e.g. blood alcohol level for DIC >>> very high confidence in result if procedures followed correctly • Others methods less discriminating/more interpretive and depend on context and judgement / experience of expert within competence, e.g. fibres, DNA, CDR, etc. • Multiple findings yield a higher overall probability – Bayesian Theory • Expert Witness is neutral; acts for the Court, not the prosecution • The legal profession, jurors, etc. not typically science-trained “CSI Miami Effect” also prevalent in UK: Together with bias towards “Arts & Humanities education” distorts perceptions of press, public, jurors, barristers and judges

Tension between Science and Law Science Testing theory Provisionality and uncertainty at the core Meaning of words is highly specific Findings built on previous work Scientists not always competent to communicate subtlety of findings in court Law Emphasis on legal precedent Demand for black and white contributions Legal argument carried out by people whose main skill is language manipulation Example; What does the term “contamination” mean?

Forensic Science is a process • Lack of clarity re the roles in various parts of the process, e.g. at scenes, in exhibit selection, etc. • Cost pressures can impact on quality and volume • Unusual profession in that output is often interpreted by another profession • Different jurisdictions manage the end to end process differently • No agreement on what constitutes best practice

Types of research needed • Forensic science is a multistage process • Research needed for all stages • Effectiveness and efficiency both important • Where are interventions needed and when? • Rest of this presentation will focus on technology based solutions and interpretation rather then on sociological/outcome aspects

Research and Development • Blue skies research relatively rare – fingerprints and DNA the two paradigm shifts • R&D already takes place in instrument and material manufacturers’ wider markets • Chromatography, spectroscopy, microscopy, electrophoresis, reagents, kits, etc. • Application Development driven by issues occurring during casework investigations • e.g. automated searching for FDR residues in Scanning Electron Microscopy

Tension between Validation and Development Science used in court needs to be robust and forensically validated Validation may lag behind availability of new technology Wrong to prevent access to up to date science Courts not well served if novel technology is later shown to be unreliable (or indeed the converse, as in Omagh)

Validation: Present situation • Scientific approach not universally applied. • More emphasis on precedent of tests having been used in court before than on validation and reliability of results • Lack of clarity of roles of various actors in the process • Seek standardisation by ad hoc groups agreeing • System open to criticism that best practice is not universal (e.g. LCNDNA in Omagh Trial) • Validity of results difficult to check • Lack of interoperability may hinder usefulness in cross border crimes

Validation: Implications • Need to validate all methods and publish • Need to gather data to assist in interpretation • But be aware that not everything is quantifiable • More importance on Proficiency Testing where intrinsic unquantifiability of variables demands heuristic approach • Need better system than ad hoc groups to identify best practice • What is effect of “market” on collaboration and IPR, Quality sharing? Regulator to play key role in validation of new methods

Providers’ Speed & Efficiency? Only a fraction of all criminal cases are forensically examined Reason? Insufficient resources in police budgets and providers Many processes in joint examinations must be carefully chosen and sequenced Specialists within organisations cannot readily move across specialisms Backlogs are common everywhere (US , UK and Continental Europe) Length of processes, individually and sequentially, can be months Law of diminishing returns versus importance of case Overall costs/effects of delays in CJS highly significant

R&D could also focus on Processes Non-destructive, in-situ search/detection e.g. body fluids Joint examination-proof Parallel processing of Inter-related evidence types Drugs or DNA residues in fingerprint detail Speed Rapid methods Faster processes of Location, Identification, Discrimination & Quantification Evaluation Contamination Contact versus environmental/random, secondary, tertiary … Quality Contamination control systems and methodologies

Academic connections • Forensic science unusual in lack of support from academic institutions (with exceptions) • Most professions’ developments originate from academic research – medical • Forensic science depends mostly on suppliers and commercial manufacturer sources for development • Production pressures compete for R&D time • Forensic Market is small compared to other markets for same instruments/technologies • Lack of dedicated funding probably the main reason for lower than needed R&D

Ideal world • R&D Objectives clearly identified • Ongoing interaction between practitioners and academics needed • Research carried out in academic institutions to support science produced in court and provide Development “seeds” • Application Development honed at providers with academic backup • Suppliers provide robust science, with options of back up when necessary • IPR is shared for benefit of all, plus rewards for originators

Strategic Issues to be addressed • Research funders need to be aware of value and needs in FS • Mechanisms for interactions between various players in forensic science process needed • Clarity needed in roles of all actors across the process as well as the various stakeholders • Link input to outcomes and investment in a feedback loop It would be wrong to centralise R&D and treat providers as commodity process houses.They must be fully integrated in a national FS R&D strategy

R&D in Forensic Science A Provider’s Perspective