Research focused mainly on bias will paralyse forensic science

Science and Justice

Volumn 54, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 107-109

  Champod, Christophe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DECISION MAKING; EDITORIAL; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH PRIORITY; SCIENTIST;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DECISION MAKING; FORENSIC SCIENCES; HUMANS;

EID: 84895886443     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: 18764452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2014.02.004     Document Type: Editorial

References (38)

1. Kassin S.M., Dror I.E., Kukucka J. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2013, 2:42-52.
2. Butt L. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions - commentary by a forensic examiner. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2013, 2:59-60.
3. Charlton D. Standards to avoid bias in fingerprint examination? Are such standards doomed to be based on fiscal expediency?. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2013, 2:71-72.
4. Charman S.D. The forensic confirmation bias: a problem of evidence integration, not just evidence evaluation. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2013, 2:56-58.
5. Cole S.A. Implementing counter-measures against confirmation bias in forensic science. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2013, 2:61-62.
6. Dror I.E., Kassin S.M., Kukucka J. New application of psychology to law: improving forensic evidence and expert witness contributions. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2013, 2:78-81.
7. Elaad E. Psychological contamination in forensic decisions. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2013, 2:76-77.
8. Garrett B.L. Blinded criminal justice. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2013, 2:73-75.
9. Haber R.N., Haber L. The culture of science: bias and forensic evidence. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2013, 2:65-67.
10. Heyer R., Semmler C. Forensic confirmation bias: the case of facial image comparison. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2013, 2:68-70.
11. Triplett M. Errors in forensics: cause(s) and solutions. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2013, 2:63-64.
12. Wells G.L., Wilford M.M., Smalarz L. Forensic science testing: the forensic filler-control method for controlling contextual bias, estimating error rates, and calibrating analysts' reports. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2013, 2:53-55.
13. National Research Council Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 2009, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
14. Fraser-Mackensie P.A.F., Dror I.E., Wertheim K. Cognitive and contextual influences in determination of latent fingerprint suitability for identification judgments. Sci. Justice 2013, 53:144-153.
15. Dror I.E., Wertheim K., Fraser-Mackenzie P., Walajtys J. The impact of human-technology cooperation and distributed cognition in forensic science: biasing effects of AFIS contextual information on human experts. J. Forensic Sci. 2012, 57:343-352.
16. Dror I.E., Champod C., Langenburg G., Charlton D., Hunt H., Rosenthal R. Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: inter- and intra-expert consistency and the effect of a 'target' comparison. Forensic Sci. Int. 2011, 208:10-17.
17. Dror I.E., Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci. Justice 2011, 51:204-208.
18. Nakhaeizadeh S., Dror I.E., Morgan R.M. Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias. Sci. Justice 2014, in press, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2013.11.003.
19. Stoel R.D., Dror I.E., Miller L.S. Bias among forensic document examiners: still a need for procedural changes. Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 2014, 46:91-97.
20. Found B., Ganas J. The management of domain irrelevant context information in forensic handwriting examination casework. Sci. Justice 2013, 53:154-158.
21. Page M., Taylor J., Blenkin M. Context effects and observer bias-implications for forensic odontology. J. Forensic Sci. 2012, 57:108-112.
22. Dror I. Letter to the Editor-combating bias: the next step in fighting cognitive and psychological contamination. J. Forensic Sci. 2012, 57:276-277.
23. Jackson G., Aitken C., Roberts P. Case Assessment and Interpretation of Expert Evidence: Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses 2013, The Royal Statistical Society, London.
24. Risinger D.M. Reservations about likelihood ratios (and some other aspects of forensic 'Bayesianism'). Law Probab. Risk 2013, 12:63-73.
25. Champod C. DNA transfer: informed judgment or mere guesswork?. Front. Genet. 2013, 4. 10.3389/fgene.2013.00300.
26. Roberts P., Willmore C. The Role of Forensic Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. Royal Commission on Criminal Justice Research Study 1993, No. 11. HMSO, London.
27. Laurin J.E. Remapping the path forward: toward a systemic view of forensic science reform and oversight. Tex. Law Rev. 2013, 91:1050-1118.
28. Ribaux O., Margot P., Julian R., Kelty S.F. Forensic intelligence. Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences 2013, 298-302. Academic Press, Waltham. J.A. Siegel, P.J. Saukko, M.M. Houck (Eds.).
29. Ribaux O., Baylon A., Roux C., Delémont O., Lock E., Zingg C., Margot P. Intelligence-led crime scene processing. Part I: forensic intelligence. Forensic Sci. Int. 2010, 195:10-16.
30. Ribaux O., Baylon A., Lock E., Delémont O., Roux C., Zingg C., Margot P. Intelligence-led crime scene processing. Part II: intelligence and crime scene examination. Forensic Sci. Int. 2010, 199:63-71.
31. Cole S.A. Response - forensic science reform: out of the laboratory and into the crime scene. Tex. Law Rev. 2013, 91:123-136.
32. Biedermann A., Garbolino P., Taroni F. The subjectivist interpretation of probability and the problem of individualisation in forensic science. Sci. Justice 2013, 53:192-200.
33. Page M., Taylor J., Blenkin M. Uniqueness in the forensic identification sciences-fact or fiction?. Forensic Sci. Int. 2011, 206:12-18.
34. Champod C. Fingerprint examination: towards more transparency. Law Probab. Risk 2008, 7:111-118.
35. Neumann C., Evett I.W., Skerrett J. Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic fingerprint comparison: a new paradigm. J. R. Stat. Soc. 2012, 175:371-415. (with discussion).
36. Ulery B.T., Hicklin R.A., Buscaglia J., Roberts M.A. Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2011, 108:7733-7738.
37. Champod C., Evett I., Kuchler B. Earmarks as evidence: a critical review. J. Forensic Sci. 2001, 46:1275-1284.
38. Junod S., Pasquier J., Champod C. The development of an automatic recognition system for earmark and earprint comparisons. Forensic Sci. Int. 2012, 222:170-178.