Abstract
In 2013, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced an interagency initiative to strengthen forensic science: the establishment of a National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) and development of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC). The role of NCFS is to advise DOJ on matters of policy. NCFS exists in two-year renewable terms and has held 11 meetings in Washington, DC between February 2014 and September 2016. More than 30 work products have been approved following discussion and development within seven NCFS subcommittees that have been informed by public comment. The role of OSAC is to improve forensic practices by facilitating the development and promulgation of technically sound consensus-based documentary standards that can be used by accrediting bodies in future audits of forensic laboratories. OSAC is a NIST-organised effort and it is intended to be ongoing. Since the first in-person meeting in January 2015, OSAC has grown to involve a Forensic Science Standards Board, three resource committees, five SACs, 25 subcommittees, and >200 task groups involving hundreds of people from the forensic science and research communities. This article reviews recent activities, challenges and progress of NCFS and OSAC.
1. Introduction
Forensic science is under scrutiny from a variety of stakeholders, and that scrutiny has intensified over the past few years. Many initiatives are underway to strengthen forensic science around the world. The development of a quality infrastructure for forensic science was a key component of some of the reforms anticipated in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2009 report entitled ‘Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward’Citation1. In response to the NAS report, the US Federal government has launched the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) and created the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC).
Figure 1. Illustration of roles and steps in trying to create an OSAC Registry of Approved Standards that can be used by accrediting bodies in auditing laboratories. For additional information, see Ref. Citation13.
NCFS, which consists of 40 Commissioners, is a Federal advisory committee for the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that is co-chaired with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST is a scientific agency within the US Department of Commerce and thus independent from law enforcement. NIST administers the OSAC efforts that involve over 550 members and 250 affiliates from over 300 agencies and professional organisations across 25 forensic disciplines.
NCFS seeks to strengthen forensic science through discussing matters of policy in a public forum and writing and approving work products expressing views of the Commission or specific recommendations that the Attorney General can choose to pursue. OSAC efforts centre on strengthening the practice of forensic science through evaluating, drafting, and supporting the development of technically sound documentary standards impacting forensic science measurements, results and interpretation.
As an architect of both the NCFS and OSAC, I have seen first-hand the challenges of building and running these two organisations. My colleagues and I often feel as if we are building an airplane while flying it – or a boat while we are sailing it. While the flight path has seemingly stabilised with NCFS and OSAC since their initial take-off almost three years ago, turbulence is still regularly encountered as different agendas and perspectives from various stakeholders are often at play. Only time will tell if we will have sufficient fuel to complete our journey and whether or not we will make a successful landing with these NCFS and OSAC efforts. The purpose of this article is to provide some background on our ‘flight plan’, ‘passenger list’, and progress along our journey to strengthen forensic science.
2. National Commission on Forensic Science
2.1. NCFS objectives and background
The plan to form NCFS was announced at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) meeting in February 2013Citation2. From a pool of more than 300 applicants, 39 Commissioners were initially selected – 31 voting members and eight ex-officio members. A digital evidence expert was added in Term 2 of the Commission bringing the current membership to 40.
NCFS was established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires that advice received by the Federal Government contains balanced perspectives (i.e. coming from a diverse set of stakeholders) and is accessible to the publicCitation3. The charter, current bylaws, and a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between DOJ and NIST are all located at the bottom of the homepage for the NCFS website: https://www.justice.gov/ncfs.
Federal advisory committees operate on two-year renewable terms. Term 1 for NCFS began on 23 April 2013 when the original charter was filed and concluded on 23 April 2015. NCFS was renewed for Term 2, which goes from 23 April 2015 to 23 April 2017. Renewal for a third term will depend on the US presidential election outcome and whether or not the next administration’s Attorney General will support continued activities with the Commission.
The initial NCFS charter proclaimed six goals: (1) to recommend priorities for standards development to the Attorney General; (2) to review and recommend that the Attorney General endorse guidance identified or developed by subject-matter experts; (3) to develop proposed guidance concerning the intersection of forensic science and the courtroom; (4) to develop policy recommendations, including a uniform code of professional responsibility and minimum requirements for training, accreditation and/or certification; (5) to consider the recommendations of the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Forensic Science; and (6) to identify and assess the current and future needs of the forensic sciences to strengthen their disciplines and meet growing demands.
Commission meetings, which are held four times per year, involve (1) hearing reports from subcommittees regarding their activities since the previous public meeting and an introduction of draft work products; (2) voting on final work products following a 30-day public comment period and adjudication of those comments; and (3) engaging in panel discussions where outside speakers inform the Commission about specific topics of interest. Table lists panel discussion topics covered in the first 11 NCFS meetings and the number of documents approved at each meeting. Table provides more details on the first 30 work products of the Commission.
Table 1. NCFS meetings and topics covered in first 11 meetings spanning February 2014 to September 2016.
Table 2. Work products approved by the NCFS as of June 2016 (meeting No. 10). Originating subcommittees include Accreditation and Proficiency Testing (A&PT), Medicolegal Death Investigation (MDI), Scientific Inquiry and Research (SI&R), Reporting and Testimony (R&T), Interim Solutions, Human Factors, and Training on Science and Law. Documents are available at https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/work-products-adopted-commission. DOJ responses are available at https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/press-room.
2.2. NCFS membership
Commissioners represent a diverse set of stakeholders including forensic science service providers and laboratory managers; research scientists and academicians; members of the legal community: prosecutors, defence attorneys, and judges; law enforcement; and victim and defendant advocates.
The initial CommissionersCitation4 and their interest categories were reviewed in an article written by the author in October 2014Citation5. Since then, a few members have changed, primarily at the beginning of Term 2 for the CommissionCitation6,7. Current members and their biographies are available on the NCFS website at https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/members.
FACA rules require a Designated Federal Official (DFO) to be present at all meetings and to maintain all records related to the committee’s activities. Over the course of the NCFS so far, there have been three DFOs: (1) Brette Steele – Senior Counsel within the Office of the Deputy Attorney General; (2) Andrew Bruck – Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, and the current DFO; (3) Jonathan McGrath – Senior Policy Analyst in the National Institute of Justice’s Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences.
Work product documents are initially drafted within subcommittees, which are co-chaired by two Commissioners and comprise about 20 participants including Commissioners and additional subject matter experts. Across the initial NCFS subcommittees, there are almost 60 additional subcommittee members who are not Commissioners. Thus, about 100 people are directly participating in creating Commission work products. In addition, public comments received from dozens of different people have helped refine work products under development.
More information on subcommittee topics, membership, and work products is available at https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/subcommittees. Seven subcommittees have operated over the course of the NCFS so far: (1) Accreditation and Proficiency Testing; (2) Human Factors; (3) Interim Solutions; (4) Medicolegal Death Investigation; (5) Reporting and Testimony; (6) Scientific Inquiry and Research; and (7) Training on Science and Law. With the exception of the Human Factors Subcommittee (which started following Meeting No. 3), these subcommittees were formed based on discussions in NCFS Meeting No. 1 in February 2014.
2.3. NCFS activities and progress
DOJ and NIST announced the NCFS membership in January 2014Citation4 and have held 11 meetings in three different sites in the Washington, DC, area between February 2014 and September 2016 (Table ). In the first ten meetings, 30 work products have been approved following discussion and development within seven NCFS subcommittees (Table ). Each of the final documents was informed by a 30-day public comment period (see https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/draft-work-products-open-public-comment). Comments received are adjudicated by the originating subcommittee. Responses to these comments and revisions made to the final document are presented to the full Commission before a vote is taken.
For NCFS documents to be approved, a quorum must be established and a two-thirds (67%) majority achieved. Voting is conducted electronically with real-time response devices programmed to track votes to specific individuals. Voting results are provided in meeting summaries that are among the materials available on the NCFS website. Documents that fail to pass may go back to the originating subcommittee for further refinement before being brought forward again for another vote.
Two types of work products are developed and approved by the NCFS: (1) Views of the Commission, and (2) Recommendations to the Attorney General. Views documents affirm the NCFS perspective on a particular topic but do not require that specific action be taken by anyone in DOJ. Recommendations, on the other hand, are requests for specific action to be taken by the Attorney General on behalf of DOJ. DOJ has committed to consider each approved work product and provide a response regarding proposed action back to the Commission within two meetings following approval of a recommendation. DOJ often provides a media press release on the action being proposed along with a formal statement at the beginning of a Commission meeting. Of the first 30 approved work products, 16 are Views and 14 are Recommendations.
Guidance on the work product development process and adjudication of public comments has been refined over the course of the Commission. The latest iterations of this guidance are available at https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/operational-documents.
All NCFS meetings are open to members of the public who register to attend. The public can also sign up for GovDelivery email updates on the NCFS website, to receive notifications for NCFS meeting dates, open public comment periods, and posting of approved work products. Since meeting No. 2, each two-day meeting has also been accessible via real-time internet webcast. Meeting materials and approved work products are available on the Commission website at http://www.justice.gov/ncfs as well as http://www.facadatabase.gov. Archived video footage for each meeting can be found at http://www.nist.gov/forensics/ncfs.cfm.
2.4. Initial impacts of NCFS
The Commission’s vision is for all forensic evidence to support the equal and impartial application of justice. NCFS efforts can be framed into three primary goals: (1) foundational – to improve the underlying science and validity of forensic evidence and methods; (2) operational – to improve operational and management systems of forensic science service providers and forensic science medical providers; and (3) applicational – to improve clarity and understanding of forensic evidence.
The Attorney General, as head of the US Department of Justice, has jurisdiction over the DOJ laboratories, which are the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Laboratory, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Laboratory, and the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Laboratory. However, in some situations influence can be exerted beyond these three laboratories. For example, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funds much of the forensic science research and capacity enhancement programmes in the United States. Therefore, financial incentives can be tied to receipt of federal funds to help state and local forensic laboratories adopt important policies.
In the first public response to an NCFS recommendation, the DOJ announced, at the beginning of NCFS Meeting No. 8, support for the universal accreditation recommendation that had been approved in NCFS Meeting No. 6Citation8. The NCFS recommendation simply states: ‘It is recommended that all forensic science service providers (FSSPs) become accredited’ and then shares some benefits of and challenges to achieving accreditation along with a proposed implementation strategy.
In a memo dated 23 November 2015 and made public on the NCFS websiteCitation9, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that DOJ would promote universal accreditation through (1) requiring all DOJ entities providing forensic science services, except those conducting digital analysis, to obtain or maintain accreditation by December 2020; (2) requiring all DOJ attorneys to use, where practicable, accredited forensic testing entities when they request testing of evidence, except for evidence involving digital evidence; (3) recommending that the DOJ redraft its grant solicitations to provide incentives for state, local, and tribal forensic testing entities to apply for and use discretionary funding to seek and maintain accreditation; and (4) recommending that DOJ work with Congress and with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to support accreditation. The Attorney General also requested that NCFS prepare recommendations for her consideration that could encourage accreditation for forensic testing entities that conduct digital analysis.
A 17 March 2016 memo from the Attorney GeneralCitation10 provides a response to NCFS recommendations on root cause analysis and AFIS (automated fingerprint identification systems) interoperability, and a 7 June 2016 memoCitation11 provides a response to the NCFS recommendation on forensic science curriculum development. Other recommendations are under DOJ consideration and will no doubt be addressed at future NCFS meetings.
The Commission has served as an important platform to discuss medicolegal death investigation (MDI) issues at the national level. However, the DOJ has no direct jurisdiction over the MDI community and therefore cannot implement most recommendations in this space. Two MDI recommendations that were approved at Meeting No. 5 were converted to Views of the Commission documents in Meeting No. 10. The DOJ has announced plans to work ‘with the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy to create an interagency group focused on a range of issues involving medicolegal death investigation’Citation12. Proposed federal partners include the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health.
Finally, the existence of the Commission has provided an important forum for the DOJ to publicly review progress with the Forensic Science Discipline Review (FSDR) that plans to examine FBI examiner courtroom testimony in a number of forensic disciplines. For more information on FSDR, see https://www.justice.gov/dag/forensic-science.
2.5. Challenges faced
Participants in subcommittee deliberations and Commissioners in NCFS meetings have been actively engaged. Discussions have often been lively with many different perspectives at the table. These different perspectives combined with valuable input during the public comment period have improved the final work products. In the end, most documents have passed with >90% support.
Getting on the same page and finalising work products has been challenging at times. For example, multiple hours were spent over the course of several early NCFS meetings discussing an appropriate definition for ‘forensic science’ and ‘forensic science service provider’. Listening to and valuing other perspectives when contentious issues are being considered is an important skill, as is being willing to work together for the benefit of the community at large.
Another challenge that NCFS has faced is operational best practices. When the NCFS was formed, there was no standard operating procedure on how to run meetings and document development. We have learned and, and it is hoped, improved along the way. The Commission has been supported by incredible, hardworking staff. However, with vocal Commissioners and members of the public having many different agendas, maintaining a clear flight path and destination has sometimes been difficult.
A Subcommittee on Procedures and Operations (SPO) was formed after NCFS Meeting No. 6 to help define and refine process documents and bylaws governing Commission activities. SPO membership consists of the DFO (Jonathan McGrath), the Vice-Chairs (Nelson Santos and John Butler), a representative from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (Meredith Drosback), and four Commission representatives: Marilyn Huestis (a researcher), Dean Gialamas (a practitioner), Pam King (a judge), and Matt Redle (a prosecuting attorney). The SPO holds monthly teleconferences to review NCFS needs and help set agendas for future NCFS meetings. The SPO has been a valuable addition to coordinating Commission business.
3. Organization of Scientific Area Committees
3.1. OSAC objectives and background
NIST developed the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC) to strengthen the practice of forensic science by fostering the development of technically sound, consensus-based documentary standards and guidelines for widespread adoption throughout the forensic science community. In late 2013, NIST sought and received national and international input on the establishment and structure of governance models for what has become OSACCitation5. Much of 2014 was spent designing the organisation and selecting membership. Since the first in-person OSAC meeting in January 2015, this NIST-organised community effort has grown to involve a Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB), three resource committees, five Scientific Area Committees (SACs), 25 subcommittees, and >200 task groups involving hundreds of people from the forensic science community. In fact, more than 300 different organisations are permitting their employees to volunteer their time to contribute to OSAC efforts.
As noted on the OSAC website (http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac/about-osac.cfm), the organisation’s purpose is to (1) facilitate the development and promulgation of consensus-based documentary standards and guidelines for forensic science; (2) promote standards and guidelines that are fit-for-purpose and based on sound scientific principles; (3) promote the use of OSAC standards and guidelines by accreditation and certification bodies; and (4) establish and maintain working relationships with other similar organisations.
Developing standards and guidelines is important because, while accredited laboratories are audited today to ISO/IEC 17025 – general requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, there are very few discipline-specific documentary standards that the laboratories can be audited against. Currently, the use of forensic specific or discipline-specific standards is not required by law in the US. The only exception is forensic DNA laboratories that are held to the FBI Quality Assurance Standards due to Congressional mandate by the DNA Identification Act of 1994.
An important purpose of the OSAC effort is to populate an OSAC Registry of Approved Standards, which can then be used by accrediting bodies to audit forensic laboratories during their accreditation review against discipline-specific requirements. If the OSAC process works as planned, then the documentary standards and guidelines on the OSAC Registry can be trusted to be of high quality. Producing a high-quality document requires both technical merit and appropriate due process in standards development.
An article that the author wrote in the February 2016 OSAC NewsletterCitation13 reviews the OSAC ecosystem and important interactions with Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs). In preparing documentary standards, Figure illustrates that (1) existing content will be used if it is available; (2) OSAC resources will be used to enhance content or even create new draft documents; (3) partnerships will be formed with SDOs to create, refine, or finalise documentary standards; (4) the registry approval process will assess technical merit in order to provide high-quality standards; and (5) implementation of discipline-specific standards involves accrediting bodies utilising them in laboratory assessments.
Simply documenting protocols does not turn them into standards. A reasonable standards development process and careful consideration of technical merit may mean that some Scientific Working Group (SWG) documents or even previous documents from Standards Developing Organizations (e.g. ASTM, NFPA, ADA) do not make the cut and do not end up on the OSAC Registry of Approved Standards (or Guidelines). Populating the OSAC Registries is intended to provide trusted discipline-specific standards that accrediting bodies can use to audit forensic science service providers and be used by laboratories in management of their quality systems. The OSAC Registries also provide confidence to officers of the court that specific forensic science practices employed in their cases have been reviewed and approved as technically sound by a diverse stakeholder base. Knowing that the fundamental validity of a practice or method has been established, attorneys can focus on the actual application of the method by the performing laboratory and not spend valuable time on investigating the method’s validity.
3.2. OSAC Membership
OSAC is administered through an OSAC Affairs team within the NIST Special Programs Office. The OSAC Affairs team includes Mark Stolorow, John Paul Jones II, Sharon Nakich, Sabrina Springer, Matthew Gonzales, and Lavonne Brown. The NIST Standards Coordination Office, including Gordon Gillerman and Karen Reczek, also plays an active role with OSAC design and coordination. NIST measurement scientists participate as voting members or affiliates across OSAC. For example, the author is a member of the Biology/DNA SAC.
The initial OSAC membership, which was finalised in December 2014, consisted of 542 individuals. Some individuals serve at more than one level of the organisation. In OSAC’s current structure, for example, the five SAC chairs are part of the FSSB and 25 subcommittee chairs participate on their SAC as well as their subcommittee. There are up to 20 voting members on each subcommittee and up to 15 voting members on each SAC. Membership terms across the organisation are for three years with initial members serving for two-, three-, or four-year staggered terms. Those who applied, but were not selected as part of the initial group of voting members, are eligible to serve as OSAC affiliates by receiving an invitation from an OSAC unit chair to participate on task groups to address specific topics. To date, over 250 affiliates have been appointed to augment the OSAC membership.
Starting in October 2016 (and each subsequent year), one-third of current OSAC members will be replaced or renewed for a three-year term (with a two-term limit). NIST accepts applications for participation in OSAC on a continuous basis and encourages those interested to complete an application at https://www.nist.gov/osac-application-form. Non-US citizens or residents may be invited guests and affiliates but not voting members.
Because of the yearly membership renewal needs, OSAC actively recruits forensic science practitioners from organisations such as the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD), the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners (AFTE), the International Association for Identification (IAI), the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME), and the Society of Forensic Toxicologists, Inc. (SOFT). In addition, statisticians have been sought through the American Statistical Association (ASA).
3.3. OSAC activities and progress
OSAC primarily operates in a virtual environment with regular teleconferences and web meetings. Sufficient funding for travel is available to provide in-person meetings about every nine months for the entire organisation. Specific OSAC units also gather in conjunction with professional meetings to save travel costs and to interface with the forensic science community. For example, the Biology/DNA SAC met in October 2015 during the International Symposium on Human Identification (ISHI) meeting in Grapevine, Texas – and the SAC and subcommittee chairs presented updates on their groups’ progress to ISHI meeting attendees (almost 1000 forensic DNA scientists attended ISHI in 2015).
The Biology/DNA SAC holds monthly teleconferences to review documents coming from its subcommittees and task groups. These documents are reviewed and approved following sometimes vigorous discussions. At a recent in-person OSAC meeting, the Biology/DNA SAC completed a 443-word glossary of terms with its terminology task group, approved two documents to move forward through the SDO process with the newly formed AAFS Academy Standards Board DNA Consensus Body, and approved a half dozen new projects.
Table provides a snapshot of OSAC activities as of August 2016. New documents being drafted within OSAC typically begin in a subcommittee task group after receiving the go-ahead from the SAC. If research gaps are identified while considering best practices and drafting documents, then a Research Needs Assessment Form is completed, and if approved by the SAC, is posted on the OSAC website (http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac/osac-research-development-needs.cfm). Funding agencies, such as NIJ, the Department of Defense, or the National Science Foundation (NSF), can use this information when making funding decisions on specific research and development projects and more broadly to develop specific solicitations for directed forensic science research. OSAC research needs also serve as a valuable resource for graduate students interested in performing research on specific forensic science challenge areas. As can be seen in the last column in Table , some OSAC subcommittees have been more active to date than others in identifying and documenting research needs. Hopefully these needs can be met with future funding and impactful research and development.
Table 3. Summary of OSAC units and activities (as of 25 August 2016). Information drawn from the OSAC Kavi database (http://workspace.forensicosac.org) courtesy of John Paul Jones II, Associate Director of OSAC Affairs. Subcommittees (SC) create task groups to draft documents or work on specific projects. The membership column reflects involvement in a specific OSAC unit or liaisons rather than numbers of unique individuals. Affiliates extend community involvement beyond the appointed voting OSAC members. The documents column values represent multiple versions of draft work products, reference documents, meeting notes, and other OSAC forms. Research and development needs are available at http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac/osac-research-development-needs.cfm.
While the ongoing deliberations and draft documents within OSAC are closed to the general public, the organisation was designed to be open and transparent with its progress, activities, and final products. To this end, public status reports from the five SACs and 25 subcommittees are made each February in conjunction with the AAFS meeting. Table collates the number of PowerPoint slides shown by the 30 OSAC units in 2015 and 2016 simply to demonstrate that a lot of information is shared over these two-day meetings. In addition, 143 documents were available (as of 31 August 2016) in the public portion of the OSAC website (see https://workspace.forensicosac.org/kws/public/documents?view=all-documents).
Table 4. Number of slides shown by each OSAC unit as part of recent public status meetings. Slides and archived webcast video are available at https://workspace.forensicosac.org/kws/public/documents?view=all-documents (filter on 2015-02-26 to 2015-02-27) and http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac/nist-scientific-area-committee-meetings-february-2016.cfm.
Regular updates of OSAC activities are available through a monthly newsletter that began in August 2015. These newsletters announce public comment periods on documents under review and share programme activities and accomplishments with stakeholders both inside and outside the organisation. These newsletters are available at http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac.cfm and are sent out monthly via GovDelivery to almost 10,000 subscribers. If you are interested in knowing more, please sign up to receive emails on OSAC and other NIST forensic science activities.
3.4. Initial impacts of OSAC
We are still early in the life cycle of OSAC but an important impact has been exposure of the forensic community to the world of documentary standards. Efforts to carefully define and document steps involved and to better understand capabilities and limitations of methods used are vital to making progress in strengthening forensic science.
OSAC activities have led to a growth in SDO efforts in forensic science – most notably the formation of the AAFS Academy Standards Board (ASB; http://asb.aafs.org/) in late 2015 as an SDO with creation of consensus bodies that mirror OSAC subcommittees. How well the ASB standards development process interfaces with OSAC efforts remains to be seen. Numerous OSAC documents are being generated (see Table ) and these will eventually lead to standards through partnerships with SDOs. Other SDOs in addition to ASB will likely play a role in crafting standards that can strengthen and improve the practice of forensic science.
Accrediting bodies have expressed interest in using OSAC information to improve the quality and specificity of their laboratory assessments. Laboratories have expressed interest in building the Registry documents into their quality management systems. Again the true impact here still remains to be seen.
In a presentation given in May 2015 at an NSF-NIJ forensic science research and evaluation workshop, Director of OSAC Affairs Mark Stolorow shared his vision of how OSAC Registry documents could affect the practice of forensic science in the laboratory and expert testimony in the courtroom in the next five to ten yearsCitation14. This vision includes the OSAC Registries of Approved Standards and Guidelines being implemented in the practice of forensic science across all disciplines, being used by lawyers in direct and cross-examinations of expert witnesses, and being enforced by accrediting bodies in their laboratory assessments.
3.5. Challenges faced
A lot is happening across OSAC, as reflected in the information contained in Tables and . Since different parts of the organisation are moving at different rates, extrapolating from any single individual’s perspective will not accurately reflect what is happening in a different part of the organisation. A one-size-fits-all perspective can miss the mark. Likewise, tracking the many moving parts is challenging.
OSAC is different from the almost two dozen Scientific Working Groups that existed until recentlyCitation15. The multi-layered organisation can feel overly bureaucratic at times. Processes that have been designed and put into place may need to be refined based on experience as more documents are developed and proceed through the pipeline that has been defined. However, having efforts with so many forensic disciplines under one roof provides important opportunities for cross-pollination of ideas and working together to strengthen the entire forensic science enterprise.
Concerns have been raised regarding the technical merit of documents seeking approval for placement on the OSAC Registry of Approved Standards. A perceived weakness in the first standard put on the OSAC Registry led to NIST and joint NIST/FSSB statements in association with itCitation16 (see https://www.nist.gov/topics/forensic-science/osac-registries).
OSAC is not a legal entity and in its current form does not have processes in place to create voluntary consensus standards by itself. The preference that OSAC partners with SDOs has led to confusion among some regarding the role of OSAC. Given that most SDOs charge a fee for their standards to help with cost-recovery of efforts in creating them, future widespread accessibility of standards to stakeholders using forensic science information is another challenge that will be faced.
In order to help understand the weaknesses and challenges faced by the organisation, an OSAC Leadership Strategy Session (OLSS) was held on 22 June 2016. The group discussed ways to improve communication and clarity of purpose. Obstacles and metrics for programme success were also considered. From the OLSS, 25 recommendations for improvement were offered and are under consideration for appropriate ways to implement them.
4. Summary
It is too early to tell the full impact of the NCFS and OSAC on the forensic science community and the criminal justice system in the United States and beyond. The creation of rigorous scientific standards that will stand the test of time and the scrutiny of the legal system is a large endeavour and will require the commitment and engagement of the entire community to succeed. The current commitment to providing regular updates of progress with these endeavours, such as those published recently in Evidence Technology Magazine on NCFSCitation17 and OSACCitation18, is evident.
Many challenges exist in the criminal justice system and strengthening forensic science will not solve all of them. NCFS and OSAC efforts are still in their early stages and with a sustained focus can begin to move forensic science onto more solid scientific and procedural ground.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Acknowledgments
While I alone am responsible for the opinions offered in this article, I am grateful for and acknowledge input from numerous colleagues at NIST and DOJ including Susan Ballou, Richard Cavanagh, John Paul Jones II, Jonathan McGrath, Sharon Nakich, Rich Press, Karen Reczek, Nelson Santos, Katherine Sharpless, Mark Stolorow, and Victor Weedn. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice or the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Certain commercial entities are identified in order to specify experimental procedures as completely as possible. In no case does such identification imply a recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that any of the entities identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
Notes
* Plenary presentation given 22 September 2016 at the ANZFSS 23rd International Symposium.
References
- National Research Council. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.
- DOJ/NIST Press Release. Department of justice and national institute of standards and technology announce launch of national commission on forensic science. (February 15), 2013 [cited 30 Aug 2016]. Available from: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-and-national-institute-standards-and-technology-announce-launch-national
- Federal Advisory Committee Act. Information. 2016 [cited 30 Aug 2016]. Available from: http://www.gsa.gov/faca
- DOJ/NIST Press Release. U.S. departments of justice and commerce name experts to first-ever national commission on forensic science. (January 10), 2014 [cited 30 Aug 2016]. Available from: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-departments-justice-and-commerce-name-experts-first-ever-national-commission-forensic
- Butler, JM. The national commission on forensic science and the organization of scientific area committees. Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Human Identification. 2014 [cited 30 Aug 2016]. Available from: http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/25th-ishi-oral-presentations/
- DOJ/NIST Press Release. Department of justice and the national institute of standards and technology name six experts as new members of national commission on forensic science. (August 6), 2015 [cited 30 Aug 2016]. Available from: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-and-national-institute-standards-and-technology-name-six-experts-new
- DOJ/NIST Press Release. Department of justice and the national institute of standards and technology name two experts as new members of national commission on forensic science. (June 16), 2016 [cited 30 Aug 2016]. Available from: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-and-national-institute-standards-and-technology-name-two-experts-new
- DOJ Press Release. Justice department announces new accreditation policies to advance forensic science. (December 7), 2016 [cited 30 Aug 2016]. Available from: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-new-accreditation-policies-advance-forensic-science
- Office of the Attorney General. Memorandum for heads of department components – recommendations of the national commission on forensic science, announcement for NCFS meeting eight. (November 23), 2015 [cited 30 Aug 2016]. Available from: https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/797541/download
- Office of the Attorney General. Memorandum for heads of department components – recommendations of the national commission on forensic science, announcement for NCFS meeting nine. (March 17), 2016 [cited 30 Aug 2016]. Available from: https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/file/841861/download
- Office of the Attorney General. Memorandum for heads of department components recommendations of the national commission on forensic science, announcement for NCFS meeting ten. (June 7), 2016 [cited 7 Sep 2016]. Available from: https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/file/869521/download
- Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates delivers remarks at the ninth meeting of the national commission on forensic science. (March 21), 2016 [cited 31 Aug 2016]. Available from: https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-sally-q-yates-delivers-remarks-ninth-meeting-national-commission
- Butler, JM. A big picture view of OSAC efforts: message to OSAC members and stakeholders. OSAC Newsletter, February 2016. 2016 [cited 31 Aug 2016]. Available from: http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac/osac-newsletter-february-2016.cfm#bigpicture
- Stolorow, MS. 2016. Looking to the future of forensic science impacted by OSAC standards activities. National Institute of Justice Forensic Science Research and Evaluation Workshop: A Discussion on the Fundamentals of Research Design and an Evaluation of Available Literature (Held May 26–27, 2015; in Washington, D.C.), pp. 100–106. [cited 31 Aug 2016]. Available from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250088.pdf
- Butler JM. U.S. initiatives to strengthen forensic science & international standards in forensic DNA. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2015;18:4–20. 10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.06.008
- NIST Statement on ASTM: E2329-14. OSAC Newsletter, March 2016 [cited 31 Aug 2016]. Available from: http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac/osac-newsletter-march-2016.cfm#NISTStatement
- Butler, JM. Recent activities of the national commission on forensic science. Evidence Technol Mag, Summer 2016 issue. 2016;14(2):28–29. [cited 30 Aug 2016]. Available from: http://www.evidencemagazine.com/v14n2.htm
- Nakich, S. OSAC working on 151 individual forensic science standards and guidelines including interdisciplinary efforts. Evidence Technol Mag, Fall 2016 issue. 2016;14(3):50–51. [cited 31 Aug 2016]. Available from: http://www.evidencemagazine.com/v14n3.htm