Secrets of Forensic Science--Ethics in Forensics

Ethics is very important in the field of forensics. Without following a code of ethics, a murderer could be let loose on the streets, or an innocent man could go to jail. Most of the ethical issues are scientifically based, and they all depend on the practice used by the scientist. The majority of the science involved in forensics is chemistry, and there is a Code of Conduct written by the American Chemical Society that a lot of scientists follow. There are also certain precautions that need to be taken before doing any scientific experiments. For example, samples need to be kept in a safe place so as to not get contaminated. Scientists performing the experiments need to use the best technology available to them for analysis. Listed below are some examples of how science can go wrong, and how it could potentially cause the court system to fail.

1. Manipulation of Data: There are times when data may not turn out exactly as planned. An experiment might turn out some extreme or odd data. A scientist may change some of their numbers in order to get a more "real-looking" answer. If a lawyer uses this faulty information, the case may not turn out like it should have.

2. Jeopardy: Yes, as in the game show. Some managers or lawyers may give a scientist the desired answer they're looking for, and demand that they come up with the appropriate research questions to support it. This is not realistic to proper research. The questions should come first, followed by the answers.

3. Comparing Apples and Oranges: There needs to be some realistic comparisons made to support a case. For example, an attorney may find an expert witness to testify that, if a shotgun involved in a shooting had as safe a firing mechanism as a rivet gun, the incident may not have occurred. The shotgun in the incident needs to be compared to other similar shotguns, not a totally different gun.

4. Manipulation of Test Results: Two expert witnesses testifying on the same thing does not make the testimony doubly strong. For example, a scientist explains that the fingerprints left by the defendant are like seven little photographs of him at the crime scene. Getting another scientist to agree to the same thing does not make it 14 prints at the crime scene.

5. Denial: Although a polygraph examination of either suspects or victims can not be used in court, they should be used to support a theory of a crime. Failure to use this may result in false accusations, and the wrong person going to jail.

There are ways to avoid this so called "bad science," and ways to make good decisions in the sciences. One method is a battle plan called "Ockham's Razor," named after the 14th century philosopher William of Ockham. In philosophy, it is believed that a problem should be stated in its basic and simplest terms. In science, according to Ockham's Razor, the theory that fits the facts of a problem with the fewest number of assumptions is the one that should be selected.

A second tactic is termed "reductio ad absurdum," which is the disproof of a proposition (or stupid experiment) by showing the absurdity to which it leads when carried out to its logical conclusion. This can be related to the example listed under the manipulation of test results. If three scientists viewed the fingerprints, would that mean that there are 21 traces of the suspect at the crime scene? What if there were 12 scientists? It can get very ridiculous, and it does not make for a logical conclusion.

The third tactic is common sense. Following what Thomas Huxley said, "Science is simply common sense at its best--that is, rigidly accurate in observation and merciless to fallacy in logic." This is what a jury turns to in a court case. They step back for a moment and resort to instinct, to common sense.

Finally, one needs to stand one's ground. This basically means do not testify to methods beyond your expertise, do not selectively ignore evidence to the contrary, and do not overstate your qualifications.

Ethical decisions are made by following strict codes of conduct and by using the tactics listed above. Scientists usually do what they think is right, and take precautions before going forth with any experiment.