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.
Comentarios desactivados en STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES: A PATH FORWARD