Examination of Firearms Review: 2007 to 2010 - Interpol

science. The goal of this committee is to establish clear, national goals and
standards for forensic science, working in the areas of Education and Ethics;
Standards, Practices, and Protocols; Research and Development; Accreditation
and Certification; and Outreach.
In addition to national efforts, individual organizations have also responded to the
NAS report. An article by Budowle et al. (4) entitled “A Perspective on Errors,
Bias and Interpretation in the Forensic Sciences and Direction for Continuing
Advancement” offers a response from the United States Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI). The authors attempt to clarify the issue of error, namely
measurement error versus human error, and bias. They also provide a list of
additional recommendations for advancing the forensic sciences, including
developing strategic plans and initiatives for discipline-specific research needs,
publishing research needs and validation criteria, developing national databases
on reference materials for better assessment of the weight of the evidence, and
defining proper language for conveying the meaning of an association.
Moreover, the NAS report seems to have had a far-reaching influence; forensic
scientists worldwide have begun responding to the criticisms outlined in the
report. For example, twenty-two European Union forensic scientists met in
August, 2009 in Wiesbaden, Germany to discuss the implications and potential
impact of the NAS report to Europeans. An introspective summary report was
generated in which the participants maintain that forensic science in Europe is
“seen to be well ahead” of the United States, but still could work towards
improvements in reporting and transparency (5).
Much of the criticism from the NAS report addressed the overall lack of reporting
standards. In January, 2009, the Scientific Working Group for Materials Analysis
(SWGMAT) published an Expert Reporting Guideline (6). This document
describes the minimum elements that should be included in a forensic report of
examination to satisfy the requirements of the American Society of Crime
Laboratory Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB)-International
– Supplemental Requirements, ISO/IEC International Standard 17025, and
United States Federal Rules of Evidence. It also details exactly the type of
information the NAS would like to see in a forensic report of evidence. It should
be noted that this guideline was published prior to the release of even the draft
version of the NAS report (February, 2009), but was not mentioned therein, nor
was it mentioned in the final version of the report, released in September of 2009
(7).
In a presentation at the 2009 American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS)
meeting, Becker discussed the accreditation of the German Bundeskriminalamt
(BKA) to the ISO 17025 and 17020 standards (8). He advocated aspiring to
these or similar standards. Accreditation to these standards will help insure a
high level of quality and transparency in reporting. Many laboratories worldwide
are adopting these rigorous standards.
91