Forensic science needs a lot less finger-pointing and a lot more solutions.

• Author: Bono, Joseph P.

A FEW YEARS AGO I addressed an interesting issue in a workshop at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting in Washington, DC: Who have been the most influential people in the enhancements in forensic sciences over the past few years? The response flowed off my tongue as if I knew the question was coming. Actually, my response was based on impulse rather than thought: Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck. Ten years from now, if I am still around, and that might be questionable after what I am about to say this afternoon, my answer will probably be: Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld. I will reverse the order because Barry is sitting in the audience. Barry and Peter and my other friends in the defense bar including fellow Academy board member, Betty Layne DesPortes, and my friend Steve Benjamin, have forced us to take a long hard look at what we are doing in forensic science and they are forcing us to do it better.

No matter what the endeavor, professionals at any level improve when challenged. We scientists think of ourselves as purveyors of the truth. We do not argue philosophy; we argue data. We do not appeal to emotions of the heart; we appeal to the processes in the head. However, we have a corresponding responsibility to address issues many of us are not equipped to address.

I am reluctant to say that too many of my colleagues take the "forensic" out of forensic science. Most of us have not been trained in the "forensic" part of forensic science. We are incapable of justifying our conclusions or methods if we must go beyond explaining charts, tables and photographs of images. We are incapable of sorting through conflicting viewpoints and formulating sound responses during cross-examinations or discussions similar to the forum we are conducting right now. We are reluctant to formulate cogent arguments because many of us are not trained to do so. My response to this: "Get over it," and learn to communicate in the social science arenas, including the courtroom.

In the same vein I respectfully request that my colleagues on both sides of the bar educate themselves more on the basics of forensic science to be better prepared to question those who testify as expert witnesses.

Many have commented on my response to an article that appeared in a recent issue of Newsweek. (2)

The first requirement for a learned treatise or an authoritative text is that the author be learned or an authority. I have no evidence of that here, but there is that implication in the wording. This author talked about convictions in the 1980s and 1990s based on "faulty forensic science." Based on nay response to the Newsweek article cited above, a close friend advised me, "Take the high road, Joe. Be among those who call for rigor while avoiding quibbling over how much wrong was done when less powerful techniques were claimed to have more power than could be validated."

He advised me that I would be wise to back down. Here is what he wrote, "All I'm saying is that when IP [the Innocence Project] insist faulty forensic testimony is responsible, it's not helpful to scream NOT TRUE. Methinks thou doth protest too much, as the Bard would say."

My response back included the following, "There is only one thing worse than protesting too much and that is protesting not at all. Methinks that too many have not protested enough."

That same issue of Newsweek included an article by former United States Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming. (3) In fact this article was on the page facing Sharon Begley's piece. Matt, you will appreciate what Senator Simpson said, "You're entitled to be called a fool, idiot, bonehead, slob, screwball. But an attack unanswered is an attack believed."

Many in forensic science have not been allowed to answer attacks directed against forensic science. I want to make the point that what I am saying here this afternoon would not have been possible three years ago when I worked for the federal government. Here is the reason: Whenever a government employee speaks in public, the speech must be cleared and usually watered down to ensure that it does not offend anyone. And when the speech finally has been cleared for delivery, the message is usually lost. Afterwards someone will call a supervisor or write a letter of indignation to an elected official about what had been said. Guess who is going to prevail in a conflicting opinion discussion between a government employee and the constituent of a congressman?

I admire the work of the Innocence Project in evaluating claims where...