- Email: [email protected]
Medical technology: a viable source of criminalists
COMMENTARY-CORRESPONDENCE
Medical technology: a viable source of criminalists
From
RW PARSONS Jr
Sir: Re R Pfau's commentary, "Medical technology: a viable source of criminalists" in Volume 27, no 3 of the Journal (JFSS 1987; 27: 199-205).
I agree wholeheartedly that medical technologists are excellent candidates for training programs/internships in forensic laboratories (especially for forensic serology positions). Our current intern is an experienced med tech, and he is reportedly making unusually fast progress in his studies with us. I must, however, take issue with Pfau's assertion that "crime laboratory professionals seem to agree that graduates of [university] forensic science programs are clearly superior to graduates of general science programs". He justifiably states that individuals seeking an entry-level position in the forensic sciences must, of necessity, possess "a strong background in the physical and biological sciences", yet it is this same "strong background" which is regrettably lacking in most undergraduate forensic science programs.
In my experience with interns and graduates from such programs, these individuals, despite a high degree of motivation and dedication on their part, have apparently been provided with only the most basic introductory coursework in the hard theoretical sciences. These programs are apparently heavily laden with coursework in criminology, law, policework, etc, with comparatively little chemistry, biology, and physics. Every forensic scientist I can recall discussing this with has voiced the same observations. The Bachelor's Degree in Forensic Science is widely considered to represent a graduate who knows much of the "forensic" but only a rudimentary amount of the "science" in forensic science. H e may know the basic scientific procedures for several specific types of examinations, but does not well comprehend the theory and principles behind them. Such graduates are not very much better off than the criminology/criminal justice students mentioned by Pfau in his article. Even though they may very well possess a high potential, these graduates would have been much better off majoring in one of the physical or natural sciences. Most forensic labs, I believe, would much rather hire as a trainee a person
0 Forensic Science Society
1988
111
with a B.S. in chemistry, biology, physics, or even medical technology, than one with a B.S. in forensic science. The consensus of opinion among my personal friends and associates in forensic labs appears to be that it is much easier to teach the forensic aspects of our work to a scientifically educated non-forensic graduate than it is to teach hard science to a forensically educated non-scientist. Theoretical science, which is the basis for all applied science, is much more effectively taught in an academic setting, while the forensic aspects of science can be effectively taught on the job. Evidence of the hard-science weakness of most existing undergraduate forensic science programs is the fact that most graduates from accredited undergraduate programs in biology or chemistry would easily qualify to enroll in a master's degree program in forensic science, whereas few graduates from undergraduate forensic programs would qualify for graduate degree programs in biology or chemistry. The forensic graduates simply would not have sufficient undergraduate science credits. A truly effective undergraduate program in forensic science, in my opinion, would concentrate on a classical science education. Only after the science is mastered (perhaps in the senior year) would the forensic aspects be taught. Furthermore, the forensic science student would be required to major in a specific field of forensic science (chemistry, biology, etc), just as all other students of science do. After all, who has ever heard of majoring in "general science"? One majors in chemistry, biology, physics, or the like, not in all of them. Forensic science, like all science, has become far too vast and diverse for anyone to competently be a true generalist. One cannot expect to be truly expert in more than one or two fields. A person who is equally knowledgeable in serology, chemistry, microanalysis, fingerprint examination, firearms examination, document examination, etc, is expert in none of them. Mistakes and incomplete knowledge are probably less tolerable in forensic science than in any other form of science, save perhaps medicine. With the reputation, future welfare, and sometimes the very lives of people at stake (not to mention the safety of society itself), a forensic scientist cannot afford to know "something about nearly everything". He or she must instead know "nearly everything about something". That "something" should be a small number of specific specialties, firmly rooted in a basic science which is then applied to forensic work. This is, of course, just one man's opinion, and I would welcome the opportunity to hear and consider opposing points of view. However, judging from my past conversations with colleagues I feel fairly certain that most forensic scientists currently working in the field would agree with the majority of my assertions. Thank you for the opportunity to express some thoughts which have been on my mind for some time now. If I have offended anyone, I do apologize. 112
MYintent is not to offend, but rather to encourage strategies which I believe are equally to the advantage of the field of forensic science, the public and the cause of justice.
October 1987
Criminalist (Forensic Chemist) Regional Crime Lab Indian River Community College 3209 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce FL 34954, USA
Medical technology: a viable source of criminalists
From
RW PARSONS Jr
Sir: Re R Pfau's commentary, "Medical technology: a viable source of criminalists" in Volume 27, no 3 of the Journal (JFSS 1987; 27: 199-205).
I agree wholeheartedly that medical technologists are excellent candidates for training programs/internships in forensic laboratories (especially for forensic serology positions). Our current intern is an experienced med tech, and he is reportedly making unusually fast progress in his studies with us. I must, however, take issue with Pfau's assertion that "crime laboratory professionals seem to agree that graduates of [university] forensic science programs are clearly superior to graduates of general science programs". He justifiably states that individuals seeking an entry-level position in the forensic sciences must, of necessity, possess "a strong background in the physical and biological sciences", yet it is this same "strong background" which is regrettably lacking in most undergraduate forensic science programs.
In my experience with interns and graduates from such programs, these individuals, despite a high degree of motivation and dedication on their part, have apparently been provided with only the most basic introductory coursework in the hard theoretical sciences. These programs are apparently heavily laden with coursework in criminology, law, policework, etc, with comparatively little chemistry, biology, and physics. Every forensic scientist I can recall discussing this with has voiced the same observations. The Bachelor's Degree in Forensic Science is widely considered to represent a graduate who knows much of the "forensic" but only a rudimentary amount of the "science" in forensic science. H e may know the basic scientific procedures for several specific types of examinations, but does not well comprehend the theory and principles behind them. Such graduates are not very much better off than the criminology/criminal justice students mentioned by Pfau in his article. Even though they may very well possess a high potential, these graduates would have been much better off majoring in one of the physical or natural sciences. Most forensic labs, I believe, would much rather hire as a trainee a person
0 Forensic Science Society
1988
111
with a B.S. in chemistry, biology, physics, or even medical technology, than one with a B.S. in forensic science. The consensus of opinion among my personal friends and associates in forensic labs appears to be that it is much easier to teach the forensic aspects of our work to a scientifically educated non-forensic graduate than it is to teach hard science to a forensically educated non-scientist. Theoretical science, which is the basis for all applied science, is much more effectively taught in an academic setting, while the forensic aspects of science can be effectively taught on the job. Evidence of the hard-science weakness of most existing undergraduate forensic science programs is the fact that most graduates from accredited undergraduate programs in biology or chemistry would easily qualify to enroll in a master's degree program in forensic science, whereas few graduates from undergraduate forensic programs would qualify for graduate degree programs in biology or chemistry. The forensic graduates simply would not have sufficient undergraduate science credits. A truly effective undergraduate program in forensic science, in my opinion, would concentrate on a classical science education. Only after the science is mastered (perhaps in the senior year) would the forensic aspects be taught. Furthermore, the forensic science student would be required to major in a specific field of forensic science (chemistry, biology, etc), just as all other students of science do. After all, who has ever heard of majoring in "general science"? One majors in chemistry, biology, physics, or the like, not in all of them. Forensic science, like all science, has become far too vast and diverse for anyone to competently be a true generalist. One cannot expect to be truly expert in more than one or two fields. A person who is equally knowledgeable in serology, chemistry, microanalysis, fingerprint examination, firearms examination, document examination, etc, is expert in none of them. Mistakes and incomplete knowledge are probably less tolerable in forensic science than in any other form of science, save perhaps medicine. With the reputation, future welfare, and sometimes the very lives of people at stake (not to mention the safety of society itself), a forensic scientist cannot afford to know "something about nearly everything". He or she must instead know "nearly everything about something". That "something" should be a small number of specific specialties, firmly rooted in a basic science which is then applied to forensic work. This is, of course, just one man's opinion, and I would welcome the opportunity to hear and consider opposing points of view. However, judging from my past conversations with colleagues I feel fairly certain that most forensic scientists currently working in the field would agree with the majority of my assertions. Thank you for the opportunity to express some thoughts which have been on my mind for some time now. If I have offended anyone, I do apologize. 112
MYintent is not to offend, but rather to encourage strategies which I believe are equally to the advantage of the field of forensic science, the public and the cause of justice.
October 1987
Criminalist (Forensic Chemist) Regional Crime Lab Indian River Community College 3209 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce FL 34954, USA