Mike Bowers (CSIDDS) shared a Substack article by Max Houck regarding the uneven nature of forensic science in the United States. Houck’s thesis:
…how the fragmented, decentralized nature of American law enforcement and forensic practice creates a landscape where what counts as science (and possibly what counts as justice) can vary wildly depending on where you happen to be.
There are about 18,000 police agencies in the United States at all levels of government, and 400 separate forensic laboratories.
But we have standards, right?
Do Even when national scientific bodies like ASTM or NIST’s OSAC develop well-reasoned, consensus-based forensic standards, adoption is purely voluntary. Some laboratories fully integrate these standards, using them to validate methods, structure protocols, and train staff. Most others ignore them, modify them, or apply them selectively based on local preference or operational convenience. There is no enforcement mechanism, no unified system of oversight. The science exists, but whether it is followed depends on where you are.
Houck’s article details many other issues that plague forensic science, but the main issues arise because there are 18,000 different authorities on the matter. Because this is a structural issue, deeply rooted in how Americans think of governing ourselves, Houck doesn’t see an easy solution.
Reforming this system will not be easy. It runs up against the powerful American instincts toward local control, political independence, and legal precedent. Federal mandates for forensic accreditation, national licensing of analysts, or the establishment of an independent forensic science* oversight body (all ideas floated over the years) face stiff political and logistical resistance. I don’t give these ideas much of a chance.
Even Houck’s minimal suggestions for reform are questionable. In fact, if you read the list of his solutions at the bottom of his article, you’ll see that he’s already crossed one of them out.
Federal funding could be tied to meaningful accreditation and quality assurance requirements.
(Imagen 3)

1 Comment