accredited labs already have to do some of that. the organizations chosen (college of american pathologists, for example) to administer the tests are fucking ga

accredited labs already have to do some of that. the organizations chosen (college of american pathologists, for example) to administer the tests are fucking garbage. so it's a bit harder to get this kind of validation going than just deciding to test the labs. > ...a mix of a bunch of known negative samples (from individuals completely unrelated to the crime in question) haaah. you have no idea how many people are on something. getting known blank samples is nontrivial. > 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. there are independent labs that work for prosecution, defense, civil cases, etc etc every form of case you can imagine, and basically throw away all case information for the middle part of the testing process, so the folks who could hypothetically swing things one way or the other don't even know which way they'd be throwing cases if they tampered with it.