Shall the twain ever meet?

ABSTRACT

There is ongoing debate about the function and value of quality management (hereinafter: QM) for the different actors within the forensic science environment. In this commentary we identify adopters and sceptics. Adopters, more likely in management roles, seek comfort in standards and standard operating procedures (SOPs) and sceptics, often in the role of science professionals, seek flexibility and choice in the way they do business without being slaves to standards and SOPs. Is this a case of the twain never meeting? It could be argued that the perceived gap between adopters and sceptics can be narrowed so long as there is flexibility for the sceptics, for example, to put science into forensic science (e.g. critical thinking) in a way that is sufficiently transparent to satisfy the adopters and the prevailing standard(s).

KEYWORDS:

• Quality management
• Nonconforming work
• ISO17025
• complex cases
• forensic examination plan

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. We acknowledge standards with a focus on forensic science such as Standards Australia AS 5388 and those developed under the ISO technical committee TC272 for example EN ISO 21043–2:2020 – Forensic sciences - Part 2 and those in the ISO/DIS 21043 series⁴.

2. Sampling in the forensic domain has usually a different meaning compared to non-forensic domains. Searching for traces in the forensic domain is often erroneously called sampling. In the non-forensic domains sampling usually means random sampling.

3. In the context of this paper, a SOP is a metaphor for detailed protocols, instructions, and checklists, for example.

4. Additional details and requirements can be found in the ISO17025 sub-clauses 7.10.2–7.10.3.