Last month the National Academies presented a report commissioned by the Congress on 2006 to identify the needs of the Forensic Science community.

The diagnosis it presents for the discipline is it is:

• Lacked of solid scientific research that validates results
• Lacked of standard terminology when presenting the results
• Fragmented and lacked of consistent practices
• Weakly governed

And the proposed actions include:

• Establishment of best practices
• Compulsory accreditation for laboratories
• Compulsory certification for practitioners
• Peer reviewed interdisciplinary research and development
• Improved research and education
• Programs for lawyers and judges to better understand the discipline
• Creation of a new independent agency, the National Institute for Forensic Science

All those proposals are provoking a lot of controversy in the community for obvious reasons.

I have to say that I am very surprised that computer forensics is so weakly covered, but after reviewing the profiles of the participants, all comes clear.

By default I am against the way it was conducted, because:

• It focuses on evidence related to crimes, but the society needs the discipline to cover scientific proof as a whole
• The vast majority of the participants are members of the academia and not practitioners day to day

BUT I completely agree with the diagnosis and the proposed actions, except how the independent agency is created and managed.

You can buy the report here, or read it online.