Recently, Popular Mechanics published an article expressing serious doubts about several of the most popular fields of forensic science: bitemark evidence, fiber and hair analysis, fingerprint identification, and ballistics. The article profiles several people -including Brandon Mayfield, the Portland attorney accused of having a part in the 2004 Madrid train bombings – who have been falsely accused or even convicted based on faulty forensics with little to no statistical reliability. Twitter is all aflutter: “Forensics Myths Debunked”; “CSI Myths: The Shaky Science Behind Forensic Science”; “Forensics Was Invented by Cops, Not Scientists – And It’s All Starting to Unravel.”

I find this fascinating for many reasons, but mostly because of that last tweet:  ”Forensics Was Invented by Cops, Not Scientists.”  Given that modern culture tends to divide experts into distinct specialties and fields, a statement such as this comes as no surprise.  But the fact is, science itself was not “invented” by “scientists.” (Try running around in that circle for a minute: a field invented by people working in a field that does not yet exist.) Science is more method than distinct field, a deliberate way of investigating the world, a philosophy.  

The tweet & the article also express a deep bias: that scientists are the only experts we can trust with investigation. But police have no less right to engage in scientific inquiry than biologists or chemists. This is not to say that forensic science should be any less rigorous, or that biologists, chemists, and the like shouldn’t be part of the hunt for statistically reliable methods of finding and using evidence.  But police should be able to develop (or help develop) relevant, reliable forensic techniques – to apply the scientific method to their everyday work. 

Of course, I have my own biases.  I seek to break boundaries, deliberately working in a gray area between science and art (or science-as-metaphor and art-as-science).  I have defended this on multiple occasions to those who believe I don’t have the “right” to explore forensic science, given my lack of credentials as a scientist or cop. Even when I began studying criminology, I spent more time defending my process than I did sharing my work. For years, I thought this was sexism, plain and simple, but now I see it might have been something else.