8 ms·

Ontario wrongly separated families on results of Motherisk hair-testing program

173 points by okket 9y ago

simion314 9y ago
IT is incredible how major decisions are taken because of this bad experts, the science community needs to find a way to properly handle this "forensic science" before someone invents a mind reader that will detect if you have bad thoughts like pedophilia or similar and destroys more lives. Probably you will need some system similar to physics where you can claim something is true untill you have a big confidence in your experiments and the experiments are replicated.
- madaxe_again 9y ago
  It’s called the scientific method. Unfortunately, the people passing judgment (judges, lawyers, juries) are generally not scientists, and therefore are equally likely to believe the guy with the paedo-dowser as the next guy. Unreliable witnesses are as old as the justice system - “science” gives them a veneer of respectability now, just as it has in the past. I see two problems, neither of which have an easy solution: 1) scientific literacy is dire, and worsening. Education helps, but when anti-science sentiment runs rife in popular culture and media, as it does now, education is met with resistance. I have been reduced to a gibbering wreck trying to explain to otherwise intelligent people that science isn’t “just an opinion”, and that astrology and astronomy aren’t “just different, equally valid opinions”. 2) the concept of the jury trial is broken. It used to be that you would be tried by your peers - people who likely knew you, had a similar background to you, could empathise and make judgments based on a clear understanding of your world. Now, you’re tried by strangers who have usually been carefully selected to be as hostile as possible without an outright admission of bias. I think there’s a happy medium somewhere between the two, as there are obviously biases in both cases.
  - na85 9y ago
    #1 is the scariest of the two in my opinion, and I think the advent of the internet has only made it easier for the "evolution is just a theory"-types to congregate and develop a siege mentality that only serves to reinforce their misconceptions. I think the problem is going to get worse before it gets better.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    "peer" in that context has only ever meant people of similar standing. In the US (and many other places) where we don't have formal or legal class distinctions it pretty much just means other citizens. I think there's probably an argument to be made about there being benefits to smaller communities, but that argument isn't supported by legal tradition surrounding the word "peer".
  - loup-vaillant 9y ago
    > I have been reduced to a gibbering wreck trying to explain to otherwise intelligent people that science isn’t “just an opinion”, and that astrology and astronomy aren’t “just different, equally valid opinions”. A short sarcastic laughter would probably have worked better. If people sense their status is lowering because they believe in this "equally valid opinions" nonsense, they will have a strong incentive to update their belief. Of course, many will be offended, in which case I recommend turning the sarcastic laugh into a benevolent, condescending smile, with perhaps an appeal to their intelligence to soften the blow. Ideally though, you should spin it as if you were ridiculing a third party. This lets them avoid direct confrontation if they so chose, and you still get to make your point. In any case, they cannot be taught as long as they subscribe to epistemic relativism. They first have to get rid of it, somehow. Doesn't matter if it's for the wrong reasons. Only then can they be taught how to properly change their mind.
    - imron 9y ago
      > offended, in which case I recommend turning the sarcastic laugh into a benevolent, condescending smile Acting condescendingly will only serve to make people think you are a condescending git.
      - loup-vaillant 9y ago
        Not if you have higher status to begin with. Not if you are their friends to begin with. And if you merely have power over them, they will notice that their beliefs will attract the contempt of people who have power over them. Of course, this probably won't work on public web forums. Of course, this won't work on your boss. Of course, this will not work well on strangers. Then again, the best way to do it is to act as if you were ridiculing a third party. If they get offended, try not to notice, and direct your condescension at those other people you're pretending they're talking about. Give them a way to save face. Whatever the means, the idea is to stress that epistemic relativism is not socially acceptable. Make them feel that thinking such thoughts has consequences.
        loup-vaillant 9y ago
  - fiatjaf 9y ago
    When science and the science community fails, your solution is to suggest that more -- indeed ALL -- people start valuing science more and putting more time and resources into it.
  - simion314 9y ago
    Is not only the jury though, I read about cases where a fireman is brought as an expert and his testimony was incorrect and if I remember right cost the accused his life. So some rules must be created for this experts, what tools they use, what software ...
  - jandrese 9y ago
    It seems to me that justice is in the most peril when the prosecutor is absolutely certain that the perp is guilty, but doesn't have any good evidence (which is not an unusual occurrence). So now he is faced with two possiblities, let the guy go and watch him kill/rob/rape again, or make up some bullshit that sounds good to a jury and that his public defender won't question too harshly. Something that sounds scientific even though it was never actually proven effective. Hair analysis, signature analysis, ballistic fingerprinting, eyewitness testimony, etc... There are people on death row that were convicted solely on circumstantial and unreliable evidence, and not a lot of it. Of course all this is a lot easier to accomplish if you can use the jury's inherent biases in your favor. Like you're trying to convict a 6"4' black man with tattoos all over his body and permanent sneer. Doesn't really matter if he's guilty or not, the jury is going to want to lock him up regardless.
- cooper12 9y ago
  Now imagine if this bad "science" actually led to people being sentenced to death: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire
  - markdog12 9y ago
    I've read that story once before, and it is absolutely blood-curdling. I wondered while reading if a movie was made, since it seemed like such an incredible story, it could pick up many awards. Seems it's coming: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3263946/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3263946/
- crispyporkbites 9y ago
  You mean like lie detectors?
  - simion314 9y ago
    Worse, like we know lie detectors would work for facts, "Did you do X? Yes/No" My scenario would involve some startup creating some software that would analyze a brain scan(or worse analyze your internet activity) then it will answer for questions like this"Does this person has potential for being a pedophile? The answer would be something vague like "Strong potential"/ "weak potential" , I chose this example because I noticed that when children are involved you get much more irrational laws and the justice is applyed much stronger with less evidence
    - crispyporkbites 9y ago
      But lie detectors don’t work
      - driverdan 9y ago
        To be more accurate, they don't work up to the standard we require for legal evidence and, with some practice, can be defeated.
- watwut 9y ago
  > before someone invents a mind reader that will detect if you have bad thoughts like pedophilia or similar and destroys more lives. Polygraph is pretty much that. But what I got out of reading about these issues too, a lot of forensic science is not science and has its own community different from academic community.
aunty_helen 9y ago
>Motherisk disingenously argues its tests were meant for "clinical" use only They would've known their tests were being used in a court of law. They could've stopped this and they didn't. I hope they face consequences.
- raverbashing 9y ago
  I'm not sure they would even need to have known (add a big fat disclaimer to test results and be done with it)
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
Just believe the parents seems like it may not always be the best policy either. There's some really terrible parents out there. I don't know off hand whether the numbers suggest more people are affeted by bad science and government overreach, or bad parents and government indifference, but I feel this blog is probably on the wrong side of the argument, even if there's areas everyone should agree on (no junk science for example). Though the blogger doesn't actually say believe the parents, they say believe the mother (well, they say "don't automatically discount the mother" which in context appears to be a weaselly way of saying the same thing) which is a bit more specific. One of the cases seems to involve an accusation from a husband, that the test backed up. So even if the lab was tossing coins to come up with their results, we also have to assume a husband and father lied about his child's mother's behaviour.
- pdpi 9y ago
  > we also have to assume a husband and father lied about his child's mother's behaviour. Given that we’re talking about a clearly contentious divorce, it’s sadly not entirely unjustified to assume this might happen.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    Are divorces in Canada contentious? I've been led to believe that USA has a uniquely dire set of divorce laws...
    - jandrese 9y ago
      Ultimately you're talking about breaking up two people who have probably lived together for some time and working out a sharing agreement with two people who don't really want to be around each other anymore. It's hard to imagine a scenario where there isn't friction or hurt feelings in this case. Best case scenario the couple wasn't married very long and doesn't have much in the way of joint possessions and no kids and they both work so you don't have alimony concerns you still need to decide who has to move out.
- mseebach 9y ago
leereeves 9y ago
Did anyone else think this article is saying that hair testing is "junk science"? That's not what the report [1] actually says. The independent review actually found specific flaws in the way the Motherisk laboratory was performing these tests, such as failure to wash hair samples, non standard hair lengths, misinterpretation of test results, failure to communicate the limits of the tests, and the lack of proper forensic procedures such as adequate records, oversight, and chain of custody. 1: https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/lang/ https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs...
- clarkevans 9y ago
  To a lay person in a situation like this, how does the distinction you make (between bad science and an incompetent application) imply an actual difference? Parents got stripped of their children because of some "scientific" process that the court relied upon.
  - EggsOnToast 9y ago
    From a systemic perspective, we can't correct for bad science until better science disproves it and becomes common enough knowledge. Unless you're both a parent and a cutting edge scientist in the field being employed against you, this is true at an individual level too. Incompetent application can, with transparent processes, be investigated by the defending party/parent/lawyer and be argued against. Or if the investigation can't be completed until after the children have been seized, corrections can be made and damages can be pursued.
  - nicoburns 9y ago
    It implies a difference in what their attitude ought to be the next tine they hear about 'hair testing' being used elsewhere...
    - chooseaname 9y ago
      Parent's had their children wrongly taken away from them. Depending on the age of the children, even if they're returned, that trauma will have a lifetime affect on them. Who cares what those people think about "hair testing".
mseidl 9y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0 John Oliver did a special about forensic science. The skit at the end is hilarious.
mcherm 9y ago
There is one simple technique that would allow nearly any forensic analysis technique to be assessed. It would detect the difference between good science (DNA) and junk science (forensic hair matches). It would work down to the level of the individual laboratory (as in this example) or individual laboratory researcher (Annie Dookhan). And it would only cost 10% extra. That technique is blind testing with published results. 10% of all submissions to the testing lab would be test samples -- a mix of a bunch of known negative samples (from individuals completely unrelated to the crime in question) and a few known positive samples (perhaps from someone already convicted with overwhelming evidence). The lab would not be told which samples were tests and which were "real", and the test samples would be evenly distributed (10% of the submissions from each department; 10% of the "rush" submissions, etc.). Finally, the results reported on these test samples would be made publicly available. Although this simple, effective, and cheap method would completely transform forensic practice, it will not be implemented. The reason is incentives. The parties involved in forensics are the police or prosecutors and the labs. Both have an incentive to identify the guilty. The accused have a countervailing interest (in correctly determining innocence), but they are not part of the transaction, so their interests are not represented. In fact, the entire system is incented to find people guilty, not to correctly assess people's guilt. So most in the system are actually DISincented to discover and debunk junk science.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  >That technique is blind testing with published results. 10% of all submissions to the testing lab would be test samples -- a mix of a bunch of known negative samples (from individuals completely unrelated to the crime in question) and a few known positive samples (perhaps from someone already convicted with overwhelming evidence). The lab would not be told which samples were tests and which were "real", and the test samples would be evenly distributed (10% of the submissions from each department; 10% of the "rush" submissions, etc.). Finally, the results reported on these test samples would be made publicly available. And not only would it let you weed out the pseudoscience but it would let you weed out the labs that are practicing the real science well from the ones that are sloppy (which in my opinion is an equally large problem).
- Zigurd 9y ago
qwerty456127 9y ago
Even if true, the lone fact that a person had abused a substance (or not abused but used - taking a substance without a prescription doesn't imply abusing, there actually are some people capable of conscious and constructive substance usage) means nothing and should never be used against the person in any way. Separating families for just this alone is ridiculous. You still are to prove that the person has developed actual addiction/habit, aggressive behavior and really harms anyone but him/herself in any way (more than the sanctions will harm them).
- chooseaname 9y ago
  It's not just aggression. Neglect is a primary reason children are removed from homes where drug abuse is happening. But, yes, without actually proving that there was drug abuse, those children should not have been removed.
- ransom1538 9y ago
  "You still are to prove that the person has developed actual addiction/habit, aggressive behavior and really harms anyone but him/herself" Nope. If you get a minute, I would watch this video on child protective services: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ETfgoSmTHI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ETfgoSmTHI
  - qwerty456127 9y ago
    I don't mean it actually works this way (one actually has to prove the problem is real, serious and actually affects the children to remove them), I mean it should work this way (I've taken a look at the video, the first ⅓ of it)
ransom1538 9y ago
There are also people rotting in US prisons for 'bite mark analysis'. https://theintercept.com/2016/09/07/white-house-report-concludes-that-bite-mark-analysis-is-junk-science/ https://theintercept.com/2016/09/07/white-house-report-concl...
jamesrgh01 9y ago
There's also shaken baby syndrome that has come under scrutiny recently: > “Our main finding is that there’s very low-quality scientific evidence for the claim,” says Niels Lynöe, a specialist in general medicine at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, and leader of the team, whose report was published last month. “You can’t use these studies to say that whenever you see these changes in the infant brain, the infant has been shaken – it’s not possible according to current knowledge.” https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230994-100-evidence-of-shaken-baby-questioned-by-controversial-study/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230994-100-evidence...
microcolonel 9y ago
The "family court" system in Ontario is provided by Social Justice Tribunals Ontario, a system of kangaroo courts set up to handle all the icky things Ontarians would rather not think about deserving a fair trial.
- eumenides1 9y ago
  Kangaroo court? Based on what?
  - woolvalley 9y ago
    Family courts have different, less stringent standards than other parts of the legal system, even less than the civil part, which is why people could call them kangaroo courts. For example, you could appeal a traffic ticket decision, but appealing a family court decision could be fairly difficult to impossible task in some jurisdictions. "As you will learn from reading our interviews, in most states a "temporary" decision made at a 10-minute hearing is generally unappealable and, from a practical point of view, permanent. How reliable is the information that a judge receives? Judge Duncan headlines one section "Lies Usually Go Unpunished." http://www.realworlddivorce.com/Litigation http://www.realworlddivorce.com/Litigation
sigstoat 9y ago
i'm more involved in forensics than, uh, apparently the rest of you. i suggest that when thinking about the various forensic "sciences", a good way to think about their reliability is "was this concocted for purely legal reasons, or is this a bunch of normal scientific/medical techniques bent to forensic purposes?" that will quickly let you divide things up into "bullshit" and "not bullshit". bite marks, tool marks, firearm testing? all concocted to generate convictions; bullshit. nobody uses any of those things for anything except legal cases. forensic toxicology, drug chemistry, dna? normal science bent to forensic purposes; not bullshit. those were all developed elsewhere, by scientists doing real science, and then later applied to legal cases. can the folks doing the testing go bad? yes. the best and only way to address that is for the defense in cases to bring in their own independent experts, and do their own testing if enough sample remains. at least in the US, the best way to make that happen is to fund public defenders better, which solves all sorts of other problems, too.
epx 9y ago
Well, what to say about a country that forces men to pay child support to ex-stepchildren?
eumenides1 9y ago
Just as an FYI, Motherisk is a much larger program than just it's drug testing lab (which is closed as of 2015). It's primary purpose is teratogen (study of abnormalities of physiological development) information service providing up-to-date information about the risk and safety of medications and other exposures during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Translation: Info distribution on the pharmacology of medications on kids. I.e. is it safe to take Advil while breastfeeding? This kind of information changes as the latest studies are done and motherisk has people take studies and translate them to opinions mothers can use. I've personally used their info and it's been very useful. Their drug testing lab scandal is a travesty and should be condemned, but other offerings of motherisk are scientifically sound. Did you know cough syrup for children is ineffective and shouldn't be given? It's a new thing apparently. Off-Topic: Why the hell motherisk decided to run a drug testing lab is beyond me. It has nothing to do with its original MO.

173 points by okket 9y ago

IT is incredible how major decisions are taken because of this bad experts, the science community needs to find a way to properly handle this "forensic science" before someone invents a mind reader that will detect if you have bad thoughts like pedophilia or similar and destroys more lives. Probably you will need some system similar to physics where you can claim something is true untill you have a big confidence in your experiments and the experiments are replicated.

madaxe_again 9y ago
It’s called the scientific method. Unfortunately, the people passing judgment (judges, lawyers, juries) are generally not scientists, and therefore are equally likely to believe the guy with the paedo-dowser as the next guy. Unreliable witnesses are as old as the justice system - “science” gives them a veneer of respectability now, just as it has in the past. I see two problems, neither of which have an easy solution: 1) scientific literacy is dire, and worsening. Education helps, but when anti-science sentiment runs rife in popular culture and media, as it does now, education is met with resistance. I have been reduced to a gibbering wreck trying to explain to otherwise intelligent people that science isn’t “just an opinion”, and that astrology and astronomy aren’t “just different, equally valid opinions”. 2) the concept of the jury trial is broken. It used to be that you would be tried by your peers - people who likely knew you, had a similar background to you, could empathise and make judgments based on a clear understanding of your world. Now, you’re tried by strangers who have usually been carefully selected to be as hostile as possible without an outright admission of bias. I think there’s a happy medium somewhere between the two, as there are obviously biases in both cases.
- na85 9y ago
  #1 is the scariest of the two in my opinion, and I think the advent of the internet has only made it easier for the "evolution is just a theory"-types to congregate and develop a siege mentality that only serves to reinforce their misconceptions. I think the problem is going to get worse before it gets better.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  "peer" in that context has only ever meant people of similar standing. In the US (and many other places) where we don't have formal or legal class distinctions it pretty much just means other citizens. I think there's probably an argument to be made about there being benefits to smaller communities, but that argument isn't supported by legal tradition surrounding the word "peer".
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  > I have been reduced to a gibbering wreck trying to explain to otherwise intelligent people that science isn’t “just an opinion”, and that astrology and astronomy aren’t “just different, equally valid opinions”. A short sarcastic laughter would probably have worked better. If people sense their status is lowering because they believe in this "equally valid opinions" nonsense, they will have a strong incentive to update their belief. Of course, many will be offended, in which case I recommend turning the sarcastic laugh into a benevolent, condescending smile, with perhaps an appeal to their intelligence to soften the blow. Ideally though, you should spin it as if you were ridiculing a third party. This lets them avoid direct confrontation if they so chose, and you still get to make your point. In any case, they cannot be taught as long as they subscribe to epistemic relativism. They first have to get rid of it, somehow. Doesn't matter if it's for the wrong reasons. Only then can they be taught how to properly change their mind.
  - imron 9y ago
    > offended, in which case I recommend turning the sarcastic laugh into a benevolent, condescending smile Acting condescendingly will only serve to make people think you are a condescending git.
    - loup-vaillant 9y ago
      Not if you have higher status to begin with. Not if you are their friends to begin with. And if you merely have power over them, they will notice that their beliefs will attract the contempt of people who have power over them. Of course, this probably won't work on public web forums. Of course, this won't work on your boss. Of course, this will not work well on strangers. Then again, the best way to do it is to act as if you were ridiculing a third party. If they get offended, try not to notice, and direct your condescension at those other people you're pretending they're talking about. Give them a way to save face. Whatever the means, the idea is to stress that epistemic relativism is not socially acceptable. Make them feel that thinking such thoughts has consequences.
      - loup-vaillant 9y ago
- fiatjaf 9y ago
  When science and the science community fails, your solution is to suggest that more -- indeed ALL -- people start valuing science more and putting more time and resources into it.
- simion314 9y ago
  Is not only the jury though, I read about cases where a fireman is brought as an expert and his testimony was incorrect and if I remember right cost the accused his life. So some rules must be created for this experts, what tools they use, what software ...
- jandrese 9y ago
  It seems to me that justice is in the most peril when the prosecutor is absolutely certain that the perp is guilty, but doesn't have any good evidence (which is not an unusual occurrence). So now he is faced with two possiblities, let the guy go and watch him kill/rob/rape again, or make up some bullshit that sounds good to a jury and that his public defender won't question too harshly. Something that sounds scientific even though it was never actually proven effective. Hair analysis, signature analysis, ballistic fingerprinting, eyewitness testimony, etc... There are people on death row that were convicted solely on circumstantial and unreliable evidence, and not a lot of it. Of course all this is a lot easier to accomplish if you can use the jury's inherent biases in your favor. Like you're trying to convict a 6"4' black man with tattoos all over his body and permanent sneer. Doesn't really matter if he's guilty or not, the jury is going to want to lock him up regardless.
cooper12 9y ago
Now imagine if this bad "science" actually led to people being sentenced to death: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire
- markdog12 9y ago
  I've read that story once before, and it is absolutely blood-curdling. I wondered while reading if a movie was made, since it seemed like such an incredible story, it could pick up many awards. Seems it's coming: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3263946/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3263946/
crispyporkbites 9y ago
You mean like lie detectors?
- simion314 9y ago
  Worse, like we know lie detectors would work for facts, "Did you do X? Yes/No" My scenario would involve some startup creating some software that would analyze a brain scan(or worse analyze your internet activity) then it will answer for questions like this"Does this person has potential for being a pedophile? The answer would be something vague like "Strong potential"/ "weak potential" , I chose this example because I noticed that when children are involved you get much more irrational laws and the justice is applyed much stronger with less evidence
  - crispyporkbites 9y ago
    But lie detectors don’t work
    - driverdan 9y ago
      To be more accurate, they don't work up to the standard we require for legal evidence and, with some practice, can be defeated.
watwut 9y ago
> before someone invents a mind reader that will detect if you have bad thoughts like pedophilia or similar and destroys more lives. Polygraph is pretty much that. But what I got out of reading about these issues too, a lot of forensic science is not science and has its own community different from academic community.

aunty_helen 9y ago

>Motherisk disingenously argues its tests were meant for "clinical" use only They would've known their tests were being used in a court of law. They could've stopped this and they didn't. I hope they face consequences.

raverbashing 9y ago
I'm not sure they would even need to have known (add a big fat disclaimer to test results and be done with it)

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

Just believe the parents seems like it may not always be the best policy either. There's some really terrible parents out there. I don't know off hand whether the numbers suggest more people are affeted by bad science and government overreach, or bad parents and government indifference, but I feel this blog is probably on the wrong side of the argument, even if there's areas everyone should agree on (no junk science for example). Though the blogger doesn't actually say believe the parents, they say believe the mother (well, they say "don't automatically discount the mother" which in context appears to be a weaselly way of saying the same thing) which is a bit more specific. One of the cases seems to involve an accusation from a husband, that the test backed up. So even if the lab was tossing coins to come up with their results, we also have to assume a husband and father lied about his child's mother's behaviour.

pdpi 9y ago
> we also have to assume a husband and father lied about his child's mother's behaviour. Given that we’re talking about a clearly contentious divorce, it’s sadly not entirely unjustified to assume this might happen.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Are divorces in Canada contentious? I've been led to believe that USA has a uniquely dire set of divorce laws...
  - jandrese 9y ago
    Ultimately you're talking about breaking up two people who have probably lived together for some time and working out a sharing agreement with two people who don't really want to be around each other anymore. It's hard to imagine a scenario where there isn't friction or hurt feelings in this case. Best case scenario the couple wasn't married very long and doesn't have much in the way of joint possessions and no kids and they both work so you don't have alimony concerns you still need to decide who has to move out.
mseebach 9y ago

leereeves 9y ago

Did anyone else think this article is saying that hair testing is "junk science"? That's not what the report [1] actually says. The independent review actually found specific flaws in the way the Motherisk laboratory was performing these tests, such as failure to wash hair samples, non standard hair lengths, misinterpretation of test results, failure to communicate the limits of the tests, and the lack of proper forensic procedures such as adequate records, oversight, and chain of custody. 1: https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/lang/ https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs...

clarkevans 9y ago
To a lay person in a situation like this, how does the distinction you make (between bad science and an incompetent application) imply an actual difference? Parents got stripped of their children because of some "scientific" process that the court relied upon.
- EggsOnToast 9y ago
  From a systemic perspective, we can't correct for bad science until better science disproves it and becomes common enough knowledge. Unless you're both a parent and a cutting edge scientist in the field being employed against you, this is true at an individual level too. Incompetent application can, with transparent processes, be investigated by the defending party/parent/lawyer and be argued against. Or if the investigation can't be completed until after the children have been seized, corrections can be made and damages can be pursued.
- nicoburns 9y ago
  It implies a difference in what their attitude ought to be the next tine they hear about 'hair testing' being used elsewhere...
  - chooseaname 9y ago
    Parent's had their children wrongly taken away from them. Depending on the age of the children, even if they're returned, that trauma will have a lifetime affect on them. Who cares what those people think about "hair testing".

mseidl 9y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0 John Oliver did a special about forensic science. The skit at the end is hilarious.

mcherm 9y ago

There is one simple technique that would allow nearly any forensic analysis technique to be assessed. It would detect the difference between good science (DNA) and junk science (forensic hair matches). It would work down to the level of the individual laboratory (as in this example) or individual laboratory researcher (Annie Dookhan). And it would only cost 10% extra. That technique is blind testing with published results. 10% of all submissions to the testing lab would be test samples -- a mix of a bunch of known negative samples (from individuals completely unrelated to the crime in question) and a few known positive samples (perhaps from someone already convicted with overwhelming evidence). The lab would not be told which samples were tests and which were "real", and the test samples would be evenly distributed (10% of the submissions from each department; 10% of the "rush" submissions, etc.). Finally, the results reported on these test samples would be made publicly available. Although this simple, effective, and cheap method would completely transform forensic practice, it will not be implemented. The reason is incentives. The parties involved in forensics are the police or prosecutors and the labs. Both have an incentive to identify the guilty. The accused have a countervailing interest (in correctly determining innocence), but they are not part of the transaction, so their interests are not represented. In fact, the entire system is incented to find people guilty, not to correctly assess people's guilt. So most in the system are actually DISincented to discover and debunk junk science.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
>That technique is blind testing with published results. 10% of all submissions to the testing lab would be test samples -- a mix of a bunch of known negative samples (from individuals completely unrelated to the crime in question) and a few known positive samples (perhaps from someone already convicted with overwhelming evidence). The lab would not be told which samples were tests and which were "real", and the test samples would be evenly distributed (10% of the submissions from each department; 10% of the "rush" submissions, etc.). Finally, the results reported on these test samples would be made publicly available. And not only would it let you weed out the pseudoscience but it would let you weed out the labs that are practicing the real science well from the ones that are sloppy (which in my opinion is an equally large problem).
Zigurd 9y ago

qwerty456127 9y ago

Even if true, the lone fact that a person had abused a substance (or not abused but used - taking a substance without a prescription doesn't imply abusing, there actually are some people capable of conscious and constructive substance usage) means nothing and should never be used against the person in any way. Separating families for just this alone is ridiculous. You still are to prove that the person has developed actual addiction/habit, aggressive behavior and really harms anyone but him/herself in any way (more than the sanctions will harm them).

chooseaname 9y ago
It's not just aggression. Neglect is a primary reason children are removed from homes where drug abuse is happening. But, yes, without actually proving that there was drug abuse, those children should not have been removed.
ransom1538 9y ago
"You still are to prove that the person has developed actual addiction/habit, aggressive behavior and really harms anyone but him/herself" Nope. If you get a minute, I would watch this video on child protective services: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ETfgoSmTHI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ETfgoSmTHI
- qwerty456127 9y ago
  I don't mean it actually works this way (one actually has to prove the problem is real, serious and actually affects the children to remove them), I mean it should work this way (I've taken a look at the video, the first ⅓ of it)

ransom1538 9y ago

There are also people rotting in US prisons for 'bite mark analysis'. https://theintercept.com/2016/09/07/white-house-report-concludes-that-bite-mark-analysis-is-junk-science/ https://theintercept.com/2016/09/07/white-house-report-concl...

jamesrgh01 9y ago

There's also shaken baby syndrome that has come under scrutiny recently: > “Our main finding is that there’s very low-quality scientific evidence for the claim,” says Niels Lynöe, a specialist in general medicine at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, and leader of the team, whose report was published last month. “You can’t use these studies to say that whenever you see these changes in the infant brain, the infant has been shaken – it’s not possible according to current knowledge.” https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230994-100-evidence-of-shaken-baby-questioned-by-controversial-study/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230994-100-evidence...

microcolonel 9y ago

The "family court" system in Ontario is provided by Social Justice Tribunals Ontario, a system of kangaroo courts set up to handle all the icky things Ontarians would rather not think about deserving a fair trial.

eumenides1 9y ago
Kangaroo court? Based on what?
- woolvalley 9y ago
  Family courts have different, less stringent standards than other parts of the legal system, even less than the civil part, which is why people could call them kangaroo courts. For example, you could appeal a traffic ticket decision, but appealing a family court decision could be fairly difficult to impossible task in some jurisdictions. "As you will learn from reading our interviews, in most states a "temporary" decision made at a 10-minute hearing is generally unappealable and, from a practical point of view, permanent. How reliable is the information that a judge receives? Judge Duncan headlines one section "Lies Usually Go Unpunished." http://www.realworlddivorce.com/Litigation http://www.realworlddivorce.com/Litigation

sigstoat 9y ago

i'm more involved in forensics than, uh, apparently the rest of you. i suggest that when thinking about the various forensic "sciences", a good way to think about their reliability is "was this concocted for purely legal reasons, or is this a bunch of normal scientific/medical techniques bent to forensic purposes?" that will quickly let you divide things up into "bullshit" and "not bullshit". bite marks, tool marks, firearm testing? all concocted to generate convictions; bullshit. nobody uses any of those things for anything except legal cases. forensic toxicology, drug chemistry, dna? normal science bent to forensic purposes; not bullshit. those were all developed elsewhere, by scientists doing real science, and then later applied to legal cases. can the folks doing the testing go bad? yes. the best and only way to address that is for the defense in cases to bring in their own independent experts, and do their own testing if enough sample remains. at least in the US, the best way to make that happen is to fund public defenders better, which solves all sorts of other problems, too.

epx 9y ago

Well, what to say about a country that forces men to pay child support to ex-stepchildren?

eumenides1 9y ago

Just as an FYI, Motherisk is a much larger program than just it's drug testing lab (which is closed as of 2015). It's primary purpose is teratogen (study of abnormalities of physiological development) information service providing up-to-date information about the risk and safety of medications and other exposures during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Translation: Info distribution on the pharmacology of medications on kids. I.e. is it safe to take Advil while breastfeeding? This kind of information changes as the latest studies are done and motherisk has people take studies and translate them to opinions mothers can use. I've personally used their info and it's been very useful. Their drug testing lab scandal is a travesty and should be condemned, but other offerings of motherisk are scientifically sound. Did you know cough syrup for children is ineffective and shouldn't be given? It's a new thing apparently. Off-Topic: Why the hell motherisk decided to run a drug testing lab is beyond me. It has nothing to do with its original MO.