The Role of the Forensic Scientist in the New Millennium

by Christopher S. Palenik

One of the reasons I chose to study science over the humanities was to avoid spending large portions of my time attempting to answer open-ended questions such as the one posed.  I have rarely found responses to such questions satisfactory, and more often than not, found them frustratingly general and incomplete. The close of the 20^th century, however, presents a natural opportunity for the discipline of forensic science to consider its role in the new millennium and for me it will mark the beginning of my career in this field.  For this latter reason, I have already spent a considerable amount of time thinking about the future of this field.  This essay presents a sensible opportunity for me to further organize my thoughts on paper.

   To begin looking forward, consider the role of the forensic scientist as having two functions, one dynamic, and the other static.  Forensic science is dynamic in that the field has evolved, and will continue to evolve over time as an agglomeration of the pure sciences; chemistry, physics, biology and mathematics.  During this progression, it is crucial that we both remember and learn from the rich history that has defined this field, supplementing, rather than abandoning past achievements with the technological progress of the present.  Despite inevitable changes in the field, it is crucial that we never compromise our first duty, that of a scientist: to be an objective observer who applies the scientific method for the purpose of logically explaining an event without bias.  This unwavering quality defines the static role.  In the following paragraphs, I will consider, more explicitly, the dynamic and static roles and the implications they have for a forensic scientist entering the new millennium.

   By definition, technology is dynamic, and in many ways technology dictates advances in forensic science.  There exist many highly publicized benefits of new scientific developments that have been recently applied to the field of forensics, DNA being a prime example.  The response of forensic scientists, both junior and senior, to these developments will establish the future of the field.  New technology requires established forensic scientists to remain abreast of current information.  For younger scientists, there is a more important lesson to be gained; automation, databases and computers have greatly simplified many aspects of previously tedious tasks creating a greater volume of routine work.  The simplicity of running an instrument versus the complexity of understanding the theory of an instrument discourages forensic scientists from understanding new instruments as well as they understood older techniques.  This results in instruments being treated as black boxes, poor conclusions being drawn and unnecessary limitations being placed on techniques.  New instruments are only more powerful than old techniques if they are understood as they are being used.  These advances do not excuse the new generation of scientists from learning the theory and hard science behind this automated technology; after all, a technician is capable of routine work.

   With the influx of new techniques, traditional techniques are commonly dismissed as time intensive, less accurate or outmoded.  There are however, many important reasons to remain aware of established methods.  For example, modern instruments are, by design, optimized for routine work.  For this reason, manual, traditional techniques are often more flexible because they can be customized for a specific problem.  Coming from a chemical background, I present the topic of microchemical tests as an example of a proven but nearly forgotten method that will quickly provide a large amount of chemical information about a particle of unknown composition.  For those who aren’t aware, a block of chemical reagents, a microscope and a copy of Chamot and Mason’s Handbook of Chemical Microscopy[1] can provide more chemical information (e.g. the valence of iron), be more sensitive, faster and less expensive than an equivalent analysis using FTIR or SEM/EDS[2].  Unfortunately, techniques such as microchemistry are being forgotten as older generations retire. 

   The above is by no means a condemnation of new technology.  Rather, this point is made to demonstrate the place of technology within the established framework of forensic science.  The dynamic role of the forensic scientist in the 21^st century must be based upon a balance between traditional and modern techniques supported by a sound theoretical framework.

   With the exception of DNA, some of the terms most commonly associated with forensic science in the media during the 1990’s were: mismanagement, lab certification and computer databases.  From this controversial and often negative publicity, it is clear that these issues are all important; however, examination of our role as forensic scientists will show that a) these are not new problems and b) the solution to this controversy has always been defined by the static role of a forensic scientist.

   The static tenet of a forensic scientist is easily stated, but difficult to practice.  Though forensic science is an applied field, a forensic scientist must, first and foremost, carry out his job as a scientist in a manner no different from a scientist in a research university.  Bureaucracy and pressure from offices outside the forensic laboratory have recently placed pressure on laboratories to implement standardization and quality control measures.  The benefits of such homogenization must be considered carefully.  While it is a duty of the forensic scientist to maintain chain of custody, ensure samples remain pure and carry out analyses under controlled conditions, the introduction of broad procedures governing analyses have as much potential for harm as they do for good.  The danger of such procedures in a laboratory is that they encourage apathy.  For example, some labs have established standard procedures for soil analysis.  With such procedures, it is possible, and has happened, that an analyst can work through an entire analysis, rigorously adhering to the letter of the procedure, submitting an acceptable result (in terms of the procedure) that makes no scientific contribution to the case.  In such a case, the duty being performed does not constitute science, nor is the analyst a scientist.  Those practicing forensics can remain true scientists by adhering to one static rule that all scientists since the time of Aristotle have followed: the Scientific Method.  By adhering to the inductive reasoning defined by the Scientific Method, the idea of broadly applied standardized procedure becomes redundant, as a true scientist will proceed thoughtfully through each step of an analysis based on logic.

  In the above paragraphs, we have considered a forensic scientist’s role from dynamic and static perspectives.  Three goals can be extracted from this that will ensure the integrity of the field into the next millennium.  First, we must prepare ourselves as the founders of this field did, by training ourselves in fundamental scientific rigor.  Secondly, by pursuing an understanding of traditional techniques we can more effectively incorporate new technology into use.  Finally, we must never ignore our duty as scientists to provide an objective and thoughtful analysis based upon the Scientific Method.

Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2001 Young Forensic Scientists Forum / American Academy of Forensic Sciences