By: Michele Triplett
FDIAI News, July – Sept 2023
Up until 2009, the fingerprint discipline claimed conclusions were absolute and conclusive, with a zero-error rate. The 2009 NAS Report, “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward” pointed out that these claims were overstatements.
Q: Where did these statements come from?
Q: Why did so many agencies and practitioners follow invalid principles?
Q: Was it easier to blindly follow authority figures than question them?
Q: As humans, are we more comfortable agreeing with the majority rather than disagreeing?
After the NAS Report was published, practitioners started moving in a different direction as they realized the need to be more transparent and avoid overstated concepts and conclusions.
In 2014, the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) began writing Standards and Best Practice Recommendations (BPRs) for several disciplines, taking over the task from many SWG’s as the SWG standards were not enforceable. This was a worthy endeavor and an opportunity to diminish reliance on dogma and promote reliance on validated concepts.
A 2017 request titled, “Request for Information on the Development of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science 2.0” stated, “These purposes of the OSAC are achieved through the OSAC Registry, the repository for all standards and guidelines. A standard or guideline is posted on the OSAC Registry only after the validity of any methods it contains has been assessed…”, It also references the development of consensus-based documents for standards and guidelines. (2017-18355.pdf (govinfo.gov). The current Charter and Bylaws of the OSAC, ver. 1.9, seems to have abandoned the validity requirement and opted for consensus conclusions.
“Openness” is another requirement in the OSAC Charter and public comments are requested on the documents they develop. Unfortunately, hearing is not the same as listening and I have found that many refuse to consider ideas outside of what they already think. Getting documents completed takes precedence over getting documents validated and tested. This is not a culture that fosters improvement, it is a culture that prolongs ignorance.
Q: Are many in the fingerprint discipline blindly following unvalidated procedures by authority figures again? Isn’t that what led to the initial problems?
Q: Is labelling “consensus documents” to be “Best Practice Recommendations” an overstatement if the recommendations haven’t been validated or tested against other methods? Is it unethical to label something as being the best when it hasn’t been proven to be the best?
Q: In the new paradigm shift, have we continued down the path of following new principles that have not been tested? Is this not simply new dogma?
Q: When lives are on the line, is consensus good enough?
Q: Who are those voting on the new Standards and BPRs?
A quote from Cathy O’Neil’s book, “Weapons of Math Destruction”, regarding a different failure seems to apply. “Very few people had the expertise and the information required to know what was actually going on statistically, and most of the people who did lacked the integrity to speak up.”
When I’ve asked about the validity of the methods, three prominent responses come to mind. “Nothing works all the time”, “Errors are inevitable” and “It’s not up to the OSAC to validate the Standards and BPRs, agencies need to validate these before using them”. These answers seem to dismiss the importance of having valid principles prior to testing procedures on actual human beings in real world casework.
Argumentum ad verecundiam, be careful blindly following those with impressive titles and/or those in authority. As the forensic comparative sciences have found with ‘absolute and conclusive, zero-error rate’, many who promote ideas with confidence and certainty are wrong. Overwhelming agreement does not mean notions are correct. Sometimes it simply shows that others are not brave enough to question prevailing views and many will try to intimidate those questioning ideas into silence.
I encourage those who agree or disagree with my thoughts to reach out through email at [email protected] or in-person at this Octobers Florida Conference
Michele Triplett is the Forensic Operation Manager/Quality Manager for the King County Regional AFIS Program in Seattle, WA. She is a Certified Latent Print Examiner and holds a BS in Mathematics and Statistical Analysis. She has been employed in the friction ridge identification discipline since 1991 and is actively involved with several organizations, committees, and educational events. She currently serves as the Director of the I A I Certification Programs and as the secretary for the Academy Standards Board Friction Ridge Consensus Body. Ms. Triplett teaches classes on scientific principles, has developed a method for measuring the complexity of pattern evidence comparisons, and has authored the ‘Fingerprint Dictionary’.
