• Question: Evaluate the effectiveness of science within your department of science: e.g being a forensic palaeontologist compared to a forensic artist? (This is an example, how effective is science within your line of work? Except evaluate).

    Asked by bones to Jamie, Jodie, Kat, Mark, Niamh on 17 Mar 2011 in Categories: .
    • Photo: Jamie Pringle

      Jamie Pringle answered on 16 Mar 2011:

      Hello bones, you definitely have an evaluate head on dont you!

      Science is crucial to forensic geophysical searches, otherwise you would just be wandering around with a metal pole and sticking it in the ground randomly.

    • Photo: Niamh Nic Daeid

      Niamh Nic Daeid answered on 16 Mar 2011:

      Hi again

      Evaluating the effectiveness of forensic science is a huge issue at the moment. The first question really is how do you do that best ? In one way you could look at how the police use forensic science and the various subjects within it as you’ve suggested. Some types of work like drug analysis of DNA analysis are carried out routinely. DNA can have huge benefits in a case but may not always be relevant to use (for example if the offender has prior access to a scene). Other types of specialist subjects such as anthropology are used in fewer cases but may provide significant information.

      Another way of looking at effectiveness is in conviction rates, the conviction rate for arson for example is very low because it is very difficult to actually prove that someone lit the match to start the fire and sometimes that’s what is required.

    • Photo: Mark Hill

      Mark Hill answered on 17 Mar 2011:

      Hello Bones,

      ‘Evaluate’. I suspect that you have been reading a guide to writing theses! ‘Evaluate’, ‘challenge’, ‘explore’, ‘assimilate’, ‘determine’, ‘expand’, ‘derive’. You’ll go far with the essays and theses.

      I am not sure that evaluate is as applicable as ‘assimilate’ for different disciplines of forensic science. I believe that the different facets of science are different and all have a part to play in the greater field.

      As such assimilation of a discipline into an investigation, where it can add value, I feel is more an answer to this question. I believe that equally as forensic palaeontology has a place in the ‘toolbox’ of crime scene and collision scene investigation, so does forensic metallurgy, digital forensics, forensic collision investigation, from the maths and physics angle, forensic odontology (in vehicle fire death cases), and so the list goes on.

      As a particular aspect of an investigation develops, so it is the investigators role to either attend and answer the problem themselves, or to identify an expert, beyond their field of expertise, who can assist.

      So, in answer to your question, I feel that we all have a part to play, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many different fields of forensics.

      Interesting question and one that made me think more laterally. Thanks. Mark.

Comments