Cognitive bias in forensic pathology decisions

Abstract

The biases that may have led to unjustified deaths by police actions have received much attention and have been extensively discussed (e.g., [1][2][3]), but are the deceased also subject to bias after their death by scientists examining their bodies? Are scientists biased by race or other irrelevant contextual information [4]?Forensic pathologists play a critical part in administering justice because of their role in criminal investigations and court proceedings, as they determine whether the manner of death was homicide vs. something else (e.g., accidental or suicide).Despite bias plaguing many forensic domains [5], forensic scientists often deny that bias can impact their decisions (the bias blind spot [6], and the fallacies of expert immunity and illusion of control [7]).Especially acute has been the resistance to adopt policies that minimize bias, which has "been met with stern resistance from the forensic pathology community" ([8] p. 261). However, cognitive bias

Recurrent Misinformation Regarding Parental Alienation Theory

“…Indeed, bias is an important consideration among forensic practitioners. Dror et al (2021) wrote, "Cognitive bias in forensic science decisions has led to erroneous conclusions with devastating consequences …" (pp. 1-2).…”

Linear Sequential Unmasking–Expanded (LSU-E): A general approach for improving decision making as well as minimizing noise and bias

“…The above criteria are ‘guiding principles’ because: The suggested criteria above are actually a continuum rather than a simple dichotomy [ 45 , 48 , 53 ]. One may even consider variability within the same category of information; for example, a higher quality video recording may be considered before a lower quality recording, or a statement from a sober eyewitness may be considered before a statement from an intoxicated witness.…”

“…Furthermore, the effects of bias have been observed and replicated across many forensic disciplines (e.g., fingerprinting, forensic pathology, DNA, firearms, digital forensic, handwriting, forensic psychology, forensic anthropology, and CSI, among others; see Ref. [ 44 ] for a review)—including among practicing forensic science experts specifically [ [30] , [45] , [46] , [47] ]. Simply put, no forensic domain, or any domain for that matter, is immune from bias.…”

Objectivity is a myth that harms the practice and diversity of forensic science

“…A forensic anthropologist may expect decedents recovered from particular contexts to have particular biological profile traits, if their previous crime-scene recoveries have shown these associations. Similarly, past experiences in death determinations may bias forensic pathology decisions [ 22 ]. Just as an archaeologist may not consider the possibility of a Viking warrior being a female [ 31 ], a forensic scientist tasked with recording an individual's gender may not ascribe transgender or gender-nonbinary determinations if their medicolegal community has consistently de-emphasized these decedents over the course of their career (i.e., a type of base-rate bias; [ 32 ].…”