- Email: [email protected]
The Forensic Science Society—A Way Forward?
GUEST EDITORIAL
@ Forensic Science Society 1986
The Forensic Science Society-A Forward?
Way
B CADDY Forensic Science Unit, University of Strathclyde, 204 George Street, Glasgow, United Kingdom G 1 1XW
Historical perspective The Forensic Science Society was founded 26 years ago by a group of enthusiastic scientists, medics, lawyers, police officers and academics with the aim of furthering the interests of all those involved in forensic work. The Constitution of the Society states that its role is "to advance the Study and Application of Forensic Science and to facilitate co-operation amongst persons interested in Forensic Science". How have the aims of the Society been pursued? Until recent times the main emphasis has been placed in two areas, that of organising two conferences each year and that of producing a Journal. While distant planning may not have been all what it should, in general, the conferences have been well supported and the journal, after a period in the doldrums, now seems to be in good shape although there is still a mistaken belief amongst some that publication time is exceptionally long. In the area of publication there have also been single volumes produced which have shown reasonable success. To what extent have members of the Society participated in these activities? In general, those participating in conferences tend to be of the upper echelons of their profession, and there is always a large core of the same people present at each conference. There are few who attend who have had only one or two year's contact with the forensic sciences. To some extent the same may be said of authors, particularly from the UK, who submit to the journal. Statistics to support this view would perhaps be more convincing but they are unavailable to the author; from these observations it would seem that the Society may be in danger of becoming a cosy select club which, from time to time, has contact with others in the public domain (e.g., the crime writers). The only new gem in the Society crown is the Diplomas of the Society (see later). What has been the effect of our policies on the total membership of the Society and on the public image of Forensic Science and how do we compare with such bodies as the General Medical Council, The Law Societies, the Royal Society of Chemistry? 233
I would suggest that our policies have had little effect on the majority of ordinary members of the Society, especially the younger members, and viirually no impact upon non-members. The public at large is unaware of our existence except on those very few instances when a spokesman, ~s~ociated with the Society, has been asked to express an opinion on a particularly contentious scientific-legal matter. Although the forensic sciences have a superficially glamorous image in society, the public, as well as many lawyers, do not distinguish between Forensic Science and Medicine. In the light of recent cases the media have portrayed the Forensic Scientists as incompetents and that is now a belief held by some, perhaps many, sections of our society and this requires to be redressed. The inconsequential nature of our Society and its activities are perhaps best reflected in the general lack of consultation with the Society by our legislators and persons in positions of power and influence. By comparison with the august bodies representing the medical and legal professions and the chemists, our Society fares badly. There are several reasons for this. These Societies are statutory bodies, membership of which is essential for the practice of that particular profession. The Royal Society of Chemistry is slightly different in that University degrees enable the practice of Chemistry. These Societies represent professions and offer advice to their members in terms of conditions of employment and their general welfare etc. Most such societies have a code of practice and are responsible for maintaining the standai 1 of performance of their members to the extent that they can impose disciplinary measures. Such societies are routinely consulted by legislators and people in positions of power and authority. Why, for example, was the Royal Society of Chemistry in recent times (1980), asked to report to the Home Secretary on the Forensic Science Service in England and Wales when no approach was made to the Forensic Science Society? Why are there no members of the Forensic Science Society on the recent 5-member review panel of forensic science services? Who better to judge a forensic science service than forensic scientists? What is the State of Forensic Science today? Whilst the rest of the world continues to expand its services and invest in personnel and equipment, the UK continues to contract. The service is underfinanced especially in terms of salaries, witnesses are attacked in Court and the turnover in staff has begun to accelerate especially for the more able scientists. What role has the Forensic Science Society played in counteracting this decline-none! From what was, perhaps the best forensic science service in the world, the UK system is rapidly becoming second best. These are some of the problems. What are the solutions? 234
The way forward? A good public image must be sustained. One way to achieve this is for a small group of the Society, perhaps a lawyer, a scientist, a medic, and an investigating officer, to be made responsible for surveying media reports of cases in which contentious decisions have been taken and any proposed new legislation. Such surveys should then be assessed professionally and pronouncements made via the media-for example, some decisions under the RTA. Another important means of promoting the Society is to build up a Parliamentary Lobby. How often has this Society invited MPs or Ministers to address its members? I would suggest that this should be a regular commitment. How often has the Society expressed its views on proposed legislation to MPs and Ministers without being directly approached? Rarely, if at all! The Society should become the Watchdog of the Forensic Sciences especially in terms of the professionalism of witness. It must not be afraid to speak out against imcompetence and should maintain a record of such problems. The new venture of the Society into means of accreditation is the beginning of this process and we should strive to become the statutory body for ratifying forensic scientists by a rapid expansion in this area. The Society must also speak for its members in terms of their conditions of employment, and should act as a channel through which dissatisfaction in the forensic sciences, in all its forms, can be conveyed to appropriate authorities from employers through to ministers and Members of Parliament. Since most of the above proposals refer to forensic scientists as compared with the other sections of our society, most of whom are represented by a statutory body (GMC, Law Society etc.), then a liaison committee of the Society should be established to coordinate our relationship with these organisations. Promotion of the professional image must be associated with scholarship and it is suggested that two ways of promoting this would be to offer scholarships in Forensic Science (cf, Canadian Forensic Science Society). The Society should also become the fulcrum of Forensic Science literature and the establishment of a Forensic Library is one way of assuring this. Finally, the international image of the Society must be enhanced. For this reason it is important that overseas members and non-members are encouraged to participate in our accreditation schemes. This would be further stimulated by a much more regular participation/representation, in 235
the name of the Society, at international conferences. Furthermore the Society should organise conferences in other countries through its local representatives. The implementation of what has preceded would require, initially, the employment of a young scientifically qualified Society Manager possessing all the drive that such a course(s) of action will require. Many will disagree with these views but if this editorial brings about some discussion and action then it will have served its purpose.
The Editor adds: This Editorial, written by Dr Brian Caddy, was presented as a paper to the Council of the Society. Council are keen that Society members have the earliest opportunity to read it, digest it, react to it, and maybe even write letters about it. The whole question it addresses is obviously very controversial and the paper fits well into the concept of Editorials which was recently espoused in these columns in the Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1985; 25 :405.
@ Forensic Science Society 1986
The Forensic Science Society-A Forward?
Way
B CADDY Forensic Science Unit, University of Strathclyde, 204 George Street, Glasgow, United Kingdom G 1 1XW
Historical perspective The Forensic Science Society was founded 26 years ago by a group of enthusiastic scientists, medics, lawyers, police officers and academics with the aim of furthering the interests of all those involved in forensic work. The Constitution of the Society states that its role is "to advance the Study and Application of Forensic Science and to facilitate co-operation amongst persons interested in Forensic Science". How have the aims of the Society been pursued? Until recent times the main emphasis has been placed in two areas, that of organising two conferences each year and that of producing a Journal. While distant planning may not have been all what it should, in general, the conferences have been well supported and the journal, after a period in the doldrums, now seems to be in good shape although there is still a mistaken belief amongst some that publication time is exceptionally long. In the area of publication there have also been single volumes produced which have shown reasonable success. To what extent have members of the Society participated in these activities? In general, those participating in conferences tend to be of the upper echelons of their profession, and there is always a large core of the same people present at each conference. There are few who attend who have had only one or two year's contact with the forensic sciences. To some extent the same may be said of authors, particularly from the UK, who submit to the journal. Statistics to support this view would perhaps be more convincing but they are unavailable to the author; from these observations it would seem that the Society may be in danger of becoming a cosy select club which, from time to time, has contact with others in the public domain (e.g., the crime writers). The only new gem in the Society crown is the Diplomas of the Society (see later). What has been the effect of our policies on the total membership of the Society and on the public image of Forensic Science and how do we compare with such bodies as the General Medical Council, The Law Societies, the Royal Society of Chemistry? 233
I would suggest that our policies have had little effect on the majority of ordinary members of the Society, especially the younger members, and viirually no impact upon non-members. The public at large is unaware of our existence except on those very few instances when a spokesman, ~s~ociated with the Society, has been asked to express an opinion on a particularly contentious scientific-legal matter. Although the forensic sciences have a superficially glamorous image in society, the public, as well as many lawyers, do not distinguish between Forensic Science and Medicine. In the light of recent cases the media have portrayed the Forensic Scientists as incompetents and that is now a belief held by some, perhaps many, sections of our society and this requires to be redressed. The inconsequential nature of our Society and its activities are perhaps best reflected in the general lack of consultation with the Society by our legislators and persons in positions of power and influence. By comparison with the august bodies representing the medical and legal professions and the chemists, our Society fares badly. There are several reasons for this. These Societies are statutory bodies, membership of which is essential for the practice of that particular profession. The Royal Society of Chemistry is slightly different in that University degrees enable the practice of Chemistry. These Societies represent professions and offer advice to their members in terms of conditions of employment and their general welfare etc. Most such societies have a code of practice and are responsible for maintaining the standai 1 of performance of their members to the extent that they can impose disciplinary measures. Such societies are routinely consulted by legislators and people in positions of power and authority. Why, for example, was the Royal Society of Chemistry in recent times (1980), asked to report to the Home Secretary on the Forensic Science Service in England and Wales when no approach was made to the Forensic Science Society? Why are there no members of the Forensic Science Society on the recent 5-member review panel of forensic science services? Who better to judge a forensic science service than forensic scientists? What is the State of Forensic Science today? Whilst the rest of the world continues to expand its services and invest in personnel and equipment, the UK continues to contract. The service is underfinanced especially in terms of salaries, witnesses are attacked in Court and the turnover in staff has begun to accelerate especially for the more able scientists. What role has the Forensic Science Society played in counteracting this decline-none! From what was, perhaps the best forensic science service in the world, the UK system is rapidly becoming second best. These are some of the problems. What are the solutions? 234
The way forward? A good public image must be sustained. One way to achieve this is for a small group of the Society, perhaps a lawyer, a scientist, a medic, and an investigating officer, to be made responsible for surveying media reports of cases in which contentious decisions have been taken and any proposed new legislation. Such surveys should then be assessed professionally and pronouncements made via the media-for example, some decisions under the RTA. Another important means of promoting the Society is to build up a Parliamentary Lobby. How often has this Society invited MPs or Ministers to address its members? I would suggest that this should be a regular commitment. How often has the Society expressed its views on proposed legislation to MPs and Ministers without being directly approached? Rarely, if at all! The Society should become the Watchdog of the Forensic Sciences especially in terms of the professionalism of witness. It must not be afraid to speak out against imcompetence and should maintain a record of such problems. The new venture of the Society into means of accreditation is the beginning of this process and we should strive to become the statutory body for ratifying forensic scientists by a rapid expansion in this area. The Society must also speak for its members in terms of their conditions of employment, and should act as a channel through which dissatisfaction in the forensic sciences, in all its forms, can be conveyed to appropriate authorities from employers through to ministers and Members of Parliament. Since most of the above proposals refer to forensic scientists as compared with the other sections of our society, most of whom are represented by a statutory body (GMC, Law Society etc.), then a liaison committee of the Society should be established to coordinate our relationship with these organisations. Promotion of the professional image must be associated with scholarship and it is suggested that two ways of promoting this would be to offer scholarships in Forensic Science (cf, Canadian Forensic Science Society). The Society should also become the fulcrum of Forensic Science literature and the establishment of a Forensic Library is one way of assuring this. Finally, the international image of the Society must be enhanced. For this reason it is important that overseas members and non-members are encouraged to participate in our accreditation schemes. This would be further stimulated by a much more regular participation/representation, in 235
the name of the Society, at international conferences. Furthermore the Society should organise conferences in other countries through its local representatives. The implementation of what has preceded would require, initially, the employment of a young scientifically qualified Society Manager possessing all the drive that such a course(s) of action will require. Many will disagree with these views but if this editorial brings about some discussion and action then it will have served its purpose.
The Editor adds: This Editorial, written by Dr Brian Caddy, was presented as a paper to the Council of the Society. Council are keen that Society members have the earliest opportunity to read it, digest it, react to it, and maybe even write letters about it. The whole question it addresses is obviously very controversial and the paper fits well into the concept of Editorials which was recently espoused in these columns in the Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1985; 25 :405.