5 ms·

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

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".
- arkades 9y ago
  Bad execution can and should be improved upon. Bad science (eg, matching bullets to guns) needs to be thrown onto the trash heap of history. The former can be debunked on a case by case basis. The latter needs to be categorically banned from judicial proceedings.
  - koolba 9y ago
    Are you saying that ballistic fingerprinting is entirely bullshit?
    - bmelton 9y ago
      I don't know if that's what OP is saying, but it seems fair to say that it's at least enough bullshit that it should probably never be used as evidentiary. The states who pioneered its adoption (New York and Maryland) have both abandoned it for being costly and ineffective. The FBI has abandoned comparative bullet lead analysis for similar reasons[1]. The National Academy of Sciences found the tests to be "full of holes", and that not enough study was being done to ensure its reliability, which was a finding that the United States President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology under Obama concurred with. The general consensus now seems to be this[2]: > An understanding of the metallurgical principles operative in the melting/casting process as well as the data acquired for this study, indicate that any forensic conclusions which associate unknown bullets with the “same source”, and/or “same box” should fail most or all Daubert criteria. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701681.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11... [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073802001184?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037907380...
      - NutriSugar 9y ago
        >it seems fair to say that it's at least enough bullshit that it should probably never be used as evidentiary. Doesn't this also apply to eyewitness testimony, if not many other forms of evidence?
vorotato 9y ago
Someone can do junk science irrespective of the field and it has no bearing on the field. There's junk science dna testing. Junk science physics. Everything and anything can be junk science if you apply yourself and try real hard.
Retric 9y ago
Hair analysis has been proven to be largely junk science. That's a separate issue because Hair analysis is not inherently worthless. It was just assumed to be vastly more accurate than it actually was. You can for example tell from a hair sample is not from the same person. IE blond hair vs black hair. You can't do the reverse and tell it is from the same person without DNA testing.
- leereeves 9y ago
  This isn't that kind of hair analysis - determining which person a hair found at the scene is from. This is looking for markers of drug and alcohol use in hair samples from a known person.
  - Retric 9y ago
    That was my point, but rereading my comment it really did not come across. Basically, a different thing had been discredited in the past also involving testing hair. Which IMO is why people though testing hair was junk science vs. the lab not doing their job properly. That said, I also think testing hair for drugs is so inaccurate to basically be worthless.

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".
arkades 9y ago
Bad execution can and should be improved upon. Bad science (eg, matching bullets to guns) needs to be thrown onto the trash heap of history. The former can be debunked on a case by case basis. The latter needs to be categorically banned from judicial proceedings.
- koolba 9y ago
  Are you saying that ballistic fingerprinting is entirely bullshit?
  - bmelton 9y ago
    I don't know if that's what OP is saying, but it seems fair to say that it's at least enough bullshit that it should probably never be used as evidentiary. The states who pioneered its adoption (New York and Maryland) have both abandoned it for being costly and ineffective. The FBI has abandoned comparative bullet lead analysis for similar reasons[1]. The National Academy of Sciences found the tests to be "full of holes", and that not enough study was being done to ensure its reliability, which was a finding that the United States President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology under Obama concurred with. The general consensus now seems to be this[2]: > An understanding of the metallurgical principles operative in the melting/casting process as well as the data acquired for this study, indicate that any forensic conclusions which associate unknown bullets with the “same source”, and/or “same box” should fail most or all Daubert criteria. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701681.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11... [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073802001184?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037907380...
    - NutriSugar 9y ago
      >it seems fair to say that it's at least enough bullshit that it should probably never be used as evidentiary. Doesn't this also apply to eyewitness testimony, if not many other forms of evidence?

vorotato 9y ago

Someone can do junk science irrespective of the field and it has no bearing on the field. There's junk science dna testing. Junk science physics. Everything and anything can be junk science if you apply yourself and try real hard.

Retric 9y ago

Hair analysis has been proven to be largely junk science. That's a separate issue because Hair analysis is not inherently worthless. It was just assumed to be vastly more accurate than it actually was. You can for example tell from a hair sample is not from the same person. IE blond hair vs black hair. You can't do the reverse and tell it is from the same person without DNA testing.

leereeves 9y ago
This isn't that kind of hair analysis - determining which person a hair found at the scene is from. This is looking for markers of drug and alcohol use in hair samples from a known person.
- Retric 9y ago
  That was my point, but rereading my comment it really did not come across. Basically, a different thing had been discredited in the past also involving testing hair. Which IMO is why people though testing hair was junk science vs. the lab not doing their job properly. That said, I also think testing hair for drugs is so inaccurate to basically be worthless.