Credit: Brian Gestring
To avoid any further headlines that read “forensic lab under investigation,” forensic scientist and consultant Brian Gestring suggests taking cues from the transportation industry, specifically cars and aviation.
Late last week, Gestring gave a presentation at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) conference that posed an interesting question: “We solve mysteries for a living, [so] why are we so bad at figuring out our own?”
Gestring, who has held various roles in the last three decades, including forensic lab scientist, academic and now a training consultant with 4N6 Services, argues that forensic science may not be “broken,” but there are cracks in the foundation that need to be addressed.
“Problems within our discipline are occurring with regularity on every level of government,” said Gestring during his presentation. “We’re even getting to the point where the same problems are occurring at different laboratories, showing that as a field we are not learning from our mistakes.”
To learn from not only our mistakes but the missteps of those that came before, Gestring suggests employing root case analysis in forensic science, ala Toyota Motor Company. In 1958, Toyota implemented the “5 Why” system, which is substantiated on the idea that if you keep asking why something is wrong you will get to the root cause analysis. It is one of the earliest examples of root cause analysis, in fact.
“The root of the problem is fundamentally different than what we see as the symptoms,” said Gestring.
In forensic science, Gestring says the fact that there is no universal requirement to be an accredited laboratory is a root problem. Additionally, instead of accrediting the entire lab, many accreditation vendors now allow labs to choose which sections to accredit, for example, just DNA or just firearms.
Currently, there is no mechanism for blame-free reporting. In fact, often, the one who discovers the problem is the one who takes the blame, further discouraging reporting and ensuring siloed information.
When Toyota implemented the 5 Way system, they trained all their employees on the solution to ensure anyone, at any level, could stop an operation due to a problem. Gestring says a good first step would be for forensic providers to train all scientific staff on root cause processes and have academic programs, such as the Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission (FEPAC), add root cause to their core curriculum for the next generation of scientists.
Gestring also suggests the establishment of a consequence-free reporting system modeled after the incredibly successful Aviation Safety Action Program.
“But, the most effective way to provide change on this issue would be for the federal government to not provide funding to any forensic operation that does not incorporate a root cause process into their operations,” said Gestring.
The forensic consultant believes that mandate would not be hard to impose nor comply with, and can be done fairly quickly—even as early as the net grant cycle. Other ideas, including mandated ISO accreditation, are more complicated and would take years to roll out.
“These steps will shore up the cracks in the forensic science foundation, because forensic science is strong, it is critical to the criminal justice system,” concluded Gerstring. “We can take these steps ourselves, or we can wait to be told to do it. What I know for sure is if we don’t do anything, the same mistakes will keep happening and the cracks in our foundation will become more robust and eventually the system will fail.”