Science and Justice Research Interest Group (RIG), Northumbria University - written evidence to the Science and Technology Committee (Lords) inquiry on forensic science (FRS0051) (original) (raw)
Related papers
2019
The Science and Justice Research Interest Group aims to promote the understanding of the role of science in securing a 'just' society. The inter-disciplinary group brings together academics and practitioners in forensic science, law and related fields. Topics of interest include: forensic science; genetics; biometrics; technology; data & databases; surveillance; miscarriages of justice; regulation of science; bioethics; interaction of science and law; and space law. Author details are included at the end of document. Executive Summary 1. Both the forensic science and biometrics 'strategy' documents lacked detail, underlying principles, and indeed, any discernible 'strategy'. Adequate governance and oversight of both forensic science and biometrics, is urgent. The importance of creating a transparent and accountable regime for the use of biometrics, and forensic science, that is simultaneously legally justifiable, socially acceptable and ethically sound, has been the core message of multiple reports and publications for many years. 7 Evison, M.P. (2018) Forensic science policy and the question of governmental University research quality assessment.
The effectiveness of the current use of forensic DNA in criminal investigations in England and Wales
WIREs Forensic Science, 2021
In this article, we consider the effectiveness of DNA analysis in criminal investigations. Through this investigative tool, unknown victims, suspects, and serial offenders have been identified. At the same time, wrongly charged and convicted individuals have been eliminated from investigations or released from custody following DNA testing. We know forensic DNA analysis is powerful in individual cases/certain crime types, but its aggregate contribution to criminal detections is low and questioned. There is little evidence to demonstrate its actual contribution. We examined the possible reasons for the low impact of forensic DNA, with some recommendations that may further maximize its utility. Available evidence demonstrates that there remains a need to ensure value for money in continued investment in forensic DNA analysis. An evaluation of trends in criminal activities and detection opportunities utilizing DNA evidence may help in identifying specific areas where DNA is most useful...
The UK forensic science regulator: A model for forensic science regulation?
Georgia State University law review, 2018
The utilization of an array of scientific techniques and technologies is now considered customary within criminal justice, with technological developments and scientific advancements regularly added to the crime investigator’s arsenal. However, the scientific basis, reliability, and fallibility of the application of such “forensic science” (and the resulting scientific evidence) continues to come under intense scrutiny. In response to apparently irremediable problems with the quality of scientific evidence in the UK, the government created the role of “Forensic Science Regulator” in 2007. The introduction of a Regulator was intended to establish quality standards for all forensic science providers in the UK, create a level playing field in the forensic services market, and grant assurances that all providers were producing reliable and robust scientific evidence. A decade on, there remain questions over the effectiveness of this model of forensic regulation. While there has been sig...
Forensic Science International: Synergy
This study presents analysis of forensic science research funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) research councils (2009e2018), representing 150 projects with a cumulative value of £56.1 m (0.01% of the total UKRI budget over this time period). The findings indicate that dedicated forensic science funding represents only 46.0% of the projects included in the dataset. Research focussed on developing technological outputs represented 69.5% of the total funding (£37.2 m) in comparison to foundational research which represented 19.2% (£10.7 m). Traditional forensic science evidence types such as fingerprints and DNA received 1.3% and 5.1% of the total funding respectively, in comparison to digital and cyber projects which received 25.7%. These data offer insight into the scale of the funding crisis in forensic science in the UK, and the need to increase the resources available, to develop ways of articulating value and to ensure that both technological and foundational research are enabled.