Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> Well, good morning and thank you very much
for the opportunity to speak before this body
to present some ideas about education, ethics,
and terminology in the context of the NAS report.
It's certainly my pleasure to be here.
Ken and Mike, beg your pardon, Ken and Mark spoke
about the structure of the committee,
the subcommittee and the IWG.
So, I don't want to spend a lot of on that.
But when you distil the matter at hand and boil
down the question, the question is what needs to be done
to properly address education, ethics, and terminology
in the context of the NAS report?
Luckily, the report laid down some Recommendations.
It's a path, it's a roadmap to follow.
There's some overarching Recommendations
as well as some subparts.
So, when I think about education and ethics and terminology
in that report, similar to what Jeff did,
we did some word searching and found
out where the terms pop up in the report.
First and foremost, we found one in Recommendation number 1,
the overarching recommendation is calling for the creation
of a NIFS, National Institute of Forensic Sciences.
But, in the subparts of that recommendation,
you can see the words education mentioned, education programs,
educational programs, and educational standards
and accreditation of forensic science programs.
So, we set out on a path, we start to follow a road and look
at the recommendations where the terms
that IWG is processing show up in the report.
Recommendation number 2 deals with standards
for reporting and testifying.
And then, certainly there would be crossover and projects
and work done by various IWGs.
But when you look into the discussion
around recommendation number 2, you see minimum
or established standard terminology.
Terminology is a big issue to tackle under this project
and we certainly acknowledge that there's going
to be crossover between the various IWGs
when we encounter terminology issues
so recommendation number 2, terminology.
And one of the things I, and one thing you'll discover too
in this process, I think, when we look at the recommendations
from the report, the body of the report,
we'll become victims of serendipity.
The report lays out some guidelines and a road to follow,
but we're certainly going to discover things along the way
that would be very educational.
We'll find new things to look into as well.
In ethics, we find the mention
in recommendation number nine calling
for a national code of ethics.
The discussion says establish a code of ethics
for all forensic science disciplines,
encourage individual societies to incorporate this code
into their professional code,
and explore mechanisms of enforcement.
It's just not good enough anymore to have a code of ethics
and to maybe or maybe not participate
but actually put some teeth into the matter and that leads
to credibility of our profession overall.
In the area of education, again, recommendation number ten dealt
with graduate education programs
and fellowships in forensic sciences.
So, we found education again, mentioned in the language.
So, we thought it important to look
at this particular recommendation
in particular continuing legal education programs,
we're going to spend a lot
of time discussing the legal community especially
with all the advancements and technology
that happen in forensic science.
The lawyers are a stakeholder they're a customer
of what we do.
It's certainly important to keep them up to speed
on the most recent advancements.
Last but not least, the things that we'll touch
on in the recommendations for education ethics
and terminology, recommendation number 11 dealt
with death investigation.
And they called for education and training
in forensic pathology.
And, I mentioned, that that discussion certainly continues.
But we keyed in on education and training in forensic pathology.
That being said, from the recommendations we do have an
IWG to address these matters.
I'm the co chair, Rob Lesnevich
from Treasury is a co chair as well, and I certainly want
to acknowledge the work
that he's done thus far in the project.
And, Katie Suchma
from the FBI is our executive secretary.
She's done a lot of the heavy lifting so far in the project.
As early on as we are, we've actually done some work.
But, Katie's done a lot of heavy lifting.
And then, the IWG members are comprised of a broad consortium
of forensic practitioners and managers in various disciplines.
The subcommittee luckily gave us IWG some marching orders.
They said hey, here's some potential activities to explore
as you embark on the process
of addressing the recommendations in the report.
So, in education they said take a look
at formal degree programs, continuing education
for the stakeholders, the practitioners,
the prosecutors, defenders, judges.
Look at the delivery mechanisms for education
and forensic sciences.
And last but not least, look at what is in existence
to educate the population, maybe juries, people who are going
to sit as customers of forensic science products
and make determinations.
In the area of ethics, the marching orders were to develop
and or work with external groups to develop
or select a code of ethics.
That's a very short phrase on the slide.
But I think it's a very daunting task.
That one's going to take a lot of time and energy.
We are fortunate to have on our IWG Ken
who is very passionate about ethics.
So, I'm sure he'll be a major contributor
to the work we have to do in this area.
In the area of terminology the subcommittee recommended
to develop terminology and definitions
for expert conclusions and opinions; another huge task
to undertake when you look
at forensic sciences across the board.
And certainly, this will require broader participation amongst
all of the IWGs that are working on various issues.
But, amongst the forensic science community at large,
you see collaboration coordination.
And I certainly want to echo those terms.
We can't solve these things on our own.
We're certainly going to need input and assistance
from the forensic science community.
When we sat down as co chairs and the executive secretary
of this group, we realized we have a roadmap
if we look at the NAS report.
We have some guidelines along the way
from the subcommittees and things to follow.
But, we thought we'd better set our own compass
so we don't stray too far afield.
And the things that we need to key on, key in on,
and not lose sight of, we're going to investigate, analyze,
and develop recommendations.
We want to stay true to that as we embark on the process.
Let the work begin.
We're in a process of gathering vast amounts of information.
And, we're already accumulating data as part of this project.
But when we look at formal degree programs,
these are the things that we are attempting to accomplish.
Look at the degree programs nationwide, evaluate accredited
versus non-accredited programs accrediting entities,
and you can see the items on the slide.
I'm going to touch briefly on core requirements.
For example, if you wish to be a forensic scientist
and a forensic chemist in the Drug Enforcement Administration,
we are going to look that you have 30 requisite hours
of chemistry in your educational background.
It's just a requirement to work for DEA Department of Justice.
And, I think that will go a long way to identify
and address these issues when we hear claims
that forensic science is not rooted
in life or physical sciences.
So, we can certainly start to address this matter by looking
at the core requirements
for various educational programs in forensic science.
When addressing continuing education, we are starting
to ask questions of practitioners
about the agency requirements for training prior
to starting casework, continuing education, what's available
from the vendors, maybe instrument manufacturers.
What kind of training does your agency allow you
to participate in?
Conferences, etcetera, and then users, we set out initially
to define users as attorneys, judges, field agents, etcetera.
Those are customers of the products that we produce.
And then, we want to identify opportunities available
through law schools or bar associations
to see what's available for attorneys to stay educated
as forensic science technology advances.
An area of layperson education, we want to take a look
at how potential jury members are
in fact educated in forensic science.
And, we hope it's not fiction television.
Educational training programs, like I mentioned,
we're going to look at in house training programs
for federal agencies and state and local agencies as well.
What models exist?
What are the requirements for training an analyst prior
to turning them loose with casework?
And, in the field of ethics, we're starting to ask questions
and explore the various codes of ethics that are
out amongst forensic science practitioners.
And then we will do some cataloging.
As scientists, we like to separate things.
I like to separate components of a mixture.
That's my favorite thing to do.
But we'll look at professional organizations,
certifying organizations, accrediting bodies, agencies,
laboratories, and certainly the SWGs.
Information gathering for terminology,
we'll look at standards and guidelines.
And this will obviously cause some crossover
with IWGs that exist as well.
Which standards are mandatory, evaluate whether or not
and to what extent terminology intersects with codes of ethics.
So, we have a set of standard terms that we're going to use but,
are you bound ethically are you obliged by your agency
to use those terms to help postulate your conclusion?
And that'll involve coordination with other groups as well.
In summary, I would say that it's a long process.
We've only just begun.
And, I would echo the thoughts of the other speakers to say
that it will certainly involve collaboration and coordination
from the forensic science community at large.
And with that said, thank you very much for your attention.
[ Applause ]