Is forensic science in crisis?

Abstract

The results of forensic science are believed to be reliable, and are widely used in support of verdicts around the world. However, due to the lack of suitable empirical studies, we actually know very little about the reliability of such results. In this paper, I argue that phenomena analogous to the main culprits for the replication crisis in psychology (questionable research practices, publication bias, or funding bias) are also present in forensic science. Therefore forensic results are significantly less reliable than is commonly believed. I conclude that in order to obtain reliable estimates for the reliability of forensic results, we need to conduct studies analogous to the large-scale replication projects in psychology. Additionally, I point to some ways for improving the reliability of forensic science, inspired by the reforms proposed in response to the Replicability Crisis.

Sustainability of Open Educational Resources in Forensic Sciences: International Experience

“…And it is only logical to consider the content and accessibility of such open educational resource. There are views that forensic science in general finds itself under crisis (Sikorski, M., 2022). And one of the reason is limited education or "education with borders".…”

Interpol review of forensic management, 2019–2022

“…When the maximizing objective is centered towards policing or judicial outcomes, rather than an emphasis on science, bias and error can be introduced [ 39 , 45 ]. This is especially true if funding is tied to these policing and judicial outcomes [ 128 ]. Furthermore, since the cost of error is not often a part of a laboratory director's management calculus, as it might be for a hospital chief executive, incentive to minimize error is reduced [ 15 ].…”

“…The result is an environment where cognitive bias occurs leading to error and potentially wrongful conviction [ 15 , 16 , 20 , 39 , 52 , 107 ]; House of Lords, 2019 [ 55 ]; or wrongful liberty [ 112 ]. Cognitive bias can take the form of conviction bias or pro-police bias [ 17 , 106 ], contextual bias [ 107 ]; [ 55 , 128 ], gender bias [ 82 ], confirmation bias [ 107 , 128 ], a rape myth belief leading to inadequate levels of SAKs submission (Campbell & Fehler-Cabral, 2022), and funding bias [ 128 ] among other biases [ 130 ]. Additionally, bias at earlier levels of evidence processing can cascade into subsequent levels, and worse still this bias can add or multiply in a bias snowball effect as task irrelevant information from a variety of sources or levels interact with one another [ 20 , 107 , 131 ].…”

“…This could help to balance any commercial conflicts of interest and better recognize the customers of forensic science [ 20 , 106 ]. Improved education on cognitive bias, public transparency, and regulation are also tools to reduce bias [ 3 , 15 , 16 , 20 , 106 , 128 ].…”

The role of theory in mitigating the ‘reproducibility crisis’

“…There are therefore serious concerns about the reproducibility and generalizability of scientific results, encouraging a cultural shift in transparency and data quality (Leonelli 2016;Parker et al 2016;Berg 2018;McCord et al 2021) in many disciplines (Marone et al 2000;Baker and Penny 2016;Forstmeier et al 2017;Ihle et al 2017;Hutson 2018;Bishop 2019;Desjardins et al 2021;Kaiser 2021;Sikorski 2022). An interesting example for ecology is the need to carefully assess the reliability and reproducibility of the evidence that can justify optimistic and pessimistic positions regarding the environmental crisis (Grau 2022(Grau , 2023.…”