Forensic science is supposed to be a scientific process. But for decades, critics have complained evidence isn’t always evaluated in a laboratory setting, and empirical studies don’t back the methods of analysis.
The consequences for faulty forensic evidence have been severe. Forty-five percent of wrongful convictions that were later overturned due to DNA evidence were found to be the result of inaccurate evidence. Advocacy groups such as the Innocence Project argue that many forensic techniques, such as bitemark analysis, are unreliable and unscientific.
In 2016, the President’s Council of Advisors in Science and Technology (PCAST) looked at the scientific validity of commonly used forensic methods and found most weren’t reliable.
In recent years, an increase in peer-reviewed studies has helped to make forensic science more consistent and systematic. Here are five techniques scientists are continuing to test and improve:
At a crime scene, evidence technicians collect samples of blood, hair, ...
