Commentary on: Budowle B, Bottrell MC, Bunch SG, Fram R, Harrison D, Meagher S, Oien CT, Peterson PE, Seiger DP,Smith MB, Smrz MA, Soltis GL, Stacey RB. A perspective on errors, bias, and interpretation in the forensic sciences and direction for continuing advancement. J Forensic Sci 2009;54(4):798‐809‐DAN E. KRANE, SIMON FORD,JASON R. GILDER, KEITH INMAN, ALLAN JAMIESON, ROGER KOPPL, IRVING L. KORNFIELD, D. MICHAEL RISINGER, NORAH RUDIN, MARC SCOTT TAYLOR, AND WILLIAM C. THOMPSON

Authors’ Response

“…Krane et al. (1) in general appear to support the opinions outlined in the paper by Budowle et al. (2) on issues of bias (as well as other issues) which fosters continued community‐wide discussion on such issues.…”

“…However, I also am glad to read that Krane et al. (1) are not so draconian in their view about addressing bias.…”

“…Krane et al. (1) criticize Budowle et al. (2) for their opinion that bias impacting forensic casework outcomes “is not a serious pervasive concern.” The experience of Budowle et al.…”

“…However, Krane et al. (1) practice what they criticize; they make unsubstantiated statements that are not quantifiable and are biased (and do not call for it to be quantified as did Budowle et al. [2]).…”

“…For example, Krane et al. (1) state “several of us review work from forensic laboratories on a daily basis and have had occasion to observe first hand the workings of forensic laboratories nationally and internationally. In our experience, the opportunity for, and the realization of, subconscious bias is more pervasive and insidious than Budowle et al.…”