I'm a Forensic Biologist, working mostly on DNA evidence. This article does not surprise me in the least. The National Academy of Science is also not surprised.

I'm a Forensic Biologist, working mostly on DNA evidence. This article does not surprise me in the least. The National Academy of Science is also not surprised. They issued a report about a year ago examining the forensic sciences in the US and found that many fields do not have enough core research. My favorite example is blood spatter analysis (think Dexter). This field is completely built around crime scene experience. It's only been within the last decade that some serious research has been undertaken to provide a scientific basis for the opinions offered in court. Now, it's not bad if your particular field has a few areas that are still lacking in basic research. But you have a DUTY to express this in court. For example, in this case, the expert can say that based on his 40 years in the field, this is his opinion, but he should note that there is no scientific support, and he should always declare if there is any disagreement within the community. Forensic science is an amazing field...unfortunately the practitioners tend to mess it up.