Stay Curious

SIGN UP FOR OUR WEEKLY NEWSLETTER AND UNLOCK ONE MORE ARTICLE FOR FREE.

Sign Up

VIEW OUR Privacy Policy


Discover Magazine Logo

WANT MORE? KEEP READING FOR AS LOW AS $1.99!

Subscribe

ALREADY A SUBSCRIBER?

FIND MY SUBSCRIPTION
Advertisement

Verdict on Forensic Science: It's Quite Bad

Explore forensic science reliability and the questionable methods behind fingerprint analysis and DNA accuracy in criminal trials.

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

Sign Up

Forensic science, often used to produce evidence for criminal trials using such techniques as fingerprint analysis, is "badly fragmented" and unreliable in the U.S., according to a report by the National Academy of Sciences. Crime laboratories around the country are grossly underfunded, lack a scientific foundation and are compromised by critical delays in analyzing physical evidence…. The report calls into question the scientific merit of virtually every commonly used forensic method, including analysis of fingerprints, hair, fibers, blood spatters, [and] ballistics [The New York Times]. According to the report "no forensic method"—with the notable exception of DNA analysis—"has been rigorously shown able to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source." Of particular concern is the use of comparative forensic methods like hair or fingerprint analysis to match a piece of evidence to a particular person, weapon, or place ...

Stay Curious

JoinOur List

Sign up for our weekly science updates

View our Privacy Policy

SubscribeTo The Magazine

Save up to 40% off the cover price when you subscribe to Discover magazine.

Subscribe
Advertisement

0 Free Articles