Forensic science reform: USA; (3): 'Forensic Magazine' highlights the Department of Justice's recently released 'Code of Conduct"...with a stress on 'no more 'reasonable scientific certainty,' - and notes that, "Forensic science, already under review and scrutiny from an alphabet-soup of federal agencies, is getting another reining-in from the Department of Justice."..."Terms such as “reasonable scientific certainty” can no longer be used, DOJ labs have to post internal validation studies online, and forensic scientists will be expected to uphold a 16-part “Code of Professional Responsibility for the Practice of Forensic Science,” announced Loretta Lynch, the U.S. Attorney General, in a memorandum last week." Reporter Seth Augenstein.

"Forensic science, already under review and scrutiny from an alphabet-soup of federal agencies, is getting another reining-in from the Department of Justice. Terms such as “reasonable scientific certainty” can no longer be used, DOJ labs have to post internal validation studies online, and forensic scientists will be expected to uphold a 16-part “Code of Professional Responsibility for the Practice of Forensic Science,” announced Loretta Lynch, the U.S. Attorney General, in a memorandum last week......... Another term that cannot be used any longer is “reasonable (forensic discipline) certainty,” according to the AG’s directive, dated Sept. 6. Any quality management system (QMS) documents created as part of the normal course of business in DOJ forensic laboratories, along with summaries of internal validation studies, will have to be posted online with 18 months. The “Code of Professional Responsibility” includes 15 requirements for all forensic analysts, and a 16^th specifically for managers. They mostly cover implied scientific and ethical standards, but seem to codify many of the widely-held set of rules:

• Accurately representing credentials.
• Being honest and truthful
• Fostering professional competency
• Continuous learning
• Conducting research and forensic casework
• Preventing evidence tampering
• Avoiding conflicts of interest
• Conducting examinations that are fair and unbiased
• Making and maintain accurate records
• Ensuring findings are backed by data and free of influence and bias
• Issuing opinions and conclusions only within areas of expertise
• Preparing reports with straightforward language – including known limitations
• No alterations or omissions of information for strategic advantage
• Encouraging whistleblowing of improper actions
• Honest communication all informative findings to all parties, including defense
• For managers: informing prosecutors of improprieties or breaches of law or standards

The federal reevaluation of forensic sciences has continued recently. Last week, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) approved a report which dismissed some forensic science, such as bite marks and hair analysis, while casting doubt on other disciplines such as ballistics, which have traditionally been accepted. Forensics first came under widespread scrutiny in 2009, with a report by National Research Council entitled “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward.” It called for major reforms to the criminal-justice system – and to establish national forensics scientific standards. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has undertaken what could become a “transformational” reevaluation of American forensic science, in response to the 2009 report. Ten disciplines are going to be subject to investigation. First up is ballistics and tool markers, latent fingerprints and arson investigations. Those are already underway."

http://www.forensicmag.com/article/2016/09/dojs-code-conduct-no-more-reasonable-scientific-certainty?et_cid=5544753&et_rid=979655504&location=top&et_cid=5544753&et_rid=979655504&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.forensicmag.com%2farticle%2f2016%2f09%2fdojs-code-conduct-no-more-reasonable-scientific-certainty%3fet_cid%3d5544753%26et_rid%3d%%subscriberid%%%26location%3dtop