When the publishers told me that this month’s issue of Forensic Magazine was the “DNA” edition, I began to consider subjects that would be appropriately encompassing for the occasion. Perhaps a retrospective, an historical synopsis of the importance of DNA to the criminal justice system? Or maybe a column analyzing how DNA has changed the way we look at forensic science as a whole, or even how we view forensic science as a science?

But as I began to put together some notes and think about the benchmarks of DNA’s integration into our American system of justice, I inevitably began to think about the people who have been integral to that process. We all have individuals who immediately come to mind when we think about the different aspects of this mixed scientific, jurisprudential, and at times, political history. From the scientific perspective, perhaps Bruce Budowle, Art Eisenberg, or Ranajit Chakraborty come to mind first. The first prosecutors I think of are Woody Clark, Rock Harmon, and Norm Gahn. And of course it’s Barry Scheck and Peter Newfield for the defense. They, along with many others, have each made significant, even historic contributions to their respective parts of the system.

But for all of those who stand out in their individual fields of expertise, another person came to mind who, from the beginning, has understood and contributed to the whole picture, to the long view. If there was a new application for the technology, a new law that needed to be passed, or another political figure that needed to be educated, Dr. Paul Ferrara, the former Director of the Division of Forensic Services for the Commonwealth of Virginia and Co-Founder of the Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine, was there. In a way unlike anyone else, Paul understood and could communicate to each of the separate communities that were necessary to leverage the full crime solving potential of DNA.

In the late 1990s, for example, there was no great market for mass DNA outsourcing, but backlogs were building fast. Two hundred and fifty thousand samples profiled with RFLP technology needed to be reanalyzed with the relatively new PCR technology. States were passing broader offender databasing statutes. And The National DNA Commission was beginning to put numbers to the backlog of both convicted offender samples and untested rape kits that began to show the true inadequacy of our national laboratory infrastructure.

One day the Commission’s Deputy Director, Dr. Lisa Forman, and I were sitting in her office after a Commission meeting. We began to ask the question of whether or not we could leverage private laboratory systems, systems designed for much greater throughput, to help deal with the growing backlog that was clogging up the DNA database pipeline. Paul was the logical person to call and test our theory on. Virginia did more DNA testing than any other state at the time and if Paul thought it was a viable idea, perhaps we could identify some federal funding from DOJ for a pilot project. I picked up the phone as we sat there, and I dialed Paul. His answer wasn’t, “Yes, that could work,” it was, “Sure it will, that’s why I am already doing it.”

It has become a common theme with Paul, simply lead by example and let the success speak for itself.

Paul also saw a better database. The Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS) was good, but regardless of the Federal prohibition against the inclusion of arrestee profiles in the National DNA Indexing System (NDIS), Paul knew more lives would be saved if, as in so many other systems around the world, he could include arrestees in the Virginia database. Even when he was told that including arrestees in Virginia’s database could endanger Virginia’s ability to participate in CODIS nationally,he pushed forward.He convinced the Virginia State Legislature that arrestee testing was the best way to catch perpetrators and to protect the innocent and on January 1, 2003, Virginia became the first state to include arrestees in its database. In 2005, Congress removed the restriction prohibiting the inclusion of arrestees in the national database and since then 24 states have enacted laws similar to Paul’s. (I mean Virginia’s.)