Worldwide standard for forensic analysis laboratories

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is issuing an international standard for forensic science. The fifteen countries making up the ‘Forensic sciences’ working group have agreed on the content. The Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) contributed to the new ISO standard, along with the police, the Public Prosecution Service (OM) and the Netherlands Register of Court Experts (NRGD). “The fact that we have now succeeded in establishing a standard at global level is groundbreaking. I could only have dreamed of that outcome beforehand”, says principal scientist Charles Berger of the NFI. The international standard will make international cooperation and exchange in forensic investigations easier. “The fact that forensic laboratories will soon be using the same scientific principles and standards is helpful. The quality of forensic analysis is high in the Netherlands, but that is not the case everywhere in the world. Which is why it is important that there should be an international standard for assuring quality.”

Like Berger, principal scientist Didier Meuwly of the NFI helped write the standard and he, too, sees it as a breakthrough: “Everyone understands the need for international quality standards for building aeroplanes. It is no different for forensic analysis. If you conduct incomplete forensic analysis or interpret observations incorrectly, it can result in erroneous conclusions in the courtroom. That can mean guilty people going free and innocent people ending up in jail.” Attempts had previously been made to reach agreement at European level about the requirements for forensic investigation, but they ultimately didn’t get beyond a ‘guideline’, which is not binding.

Onderzoeker op het laboratorium

Establishment of truth

The new standard is called “ISO-21043 Forensic Sciences” and augments the ISO-17025 standards, which already apply to measurement and calibration laboratories. The latter lay down requirements for the organisation, the staff who conduct analysis and the equipment and research methods used. “Forensic analysis is more than just measuring and calibrating. For this reason, a supplementary standard is required”, explains Berger. “With our analyses, we are contributing to the establishment of truth in criminal law. As a forensic examiner, you need to interpret your observations and report on them to the court. That imposes additional requirements. What do your observations say about what happened in a robbery, theft or stabbing? How did you reach your conclusions? It is then up to the judges to reach a verdict.”

Five sections

The new ISO standard for forensic science consists of a total of five sections, of which the first two have already been published. The first section sets out definitions. “When you use a particular word, it is important to know that you are talking about the same thing”, says Meuwly. The second section lays down the standards for recovering, sampling, transporting and storing trace evidence. The third, fourth and fifth sections will cover the analysis, interpretation and reporting of the forensic examiners’ findings. “It is about attaching meaning to the observations. You need to demonstrate that you know what you are measuring and, above all, what you do not know and are not measuring”, says Meuwly. Over the coming months, the countries will have the opportunity to tweak the text: “It’s a matter of dotting the ‘i’s and crossing the ‘t’s. The content has been agreed.”

Interpretation

Forensic science is about questions and about applying science to help answer those questions. The forensic examiners may use biology or chemistry, but also statistics and physics. “Establishing the truth is not simply expressing an opinion”, explains Berger, who was the lead editor of the section on interpretation. “It needs to be clear how the conclusions were reached and they must be verifiable. Unique to forensic science is the interpretation of the observations you make. There are parallels with diagnostics in medical science, but with an important difference: whereas a doctor performs the investigation and reaches a conclusion him or herself, in this case a judge decides. That changes your role and contribution”, says Berger. “Interpretation tells us what our observations mean for the question posed.” The Bayesian method, which considers the probabilities of observations and the support for a proposition derived from them, is part of the standard. “The method does not mean that complex statistical models are always used to calculate the evidentiary value; the method can also be applied qualitatively.”

Cooperation

Berger applauds the cooperation with the Public Prosecution Service, the NRGD and the police in arriving at the Dutch contribution to the standard. “We discussed everything between us. We had a good working relationship and we quickly reached agreement on a lot of things.” As the technical chair of two committees, the NRGD was involved in the preparatory phase of the standardisation process. The Public Prosecution Service had a particularly significant role in the fifth section, which sets out the reporting requirements. Berger and Meuwly did not have an easy go of it as lead editors: “Sometimes we would get 100 pages of proposed changes to 15 pages of text. We felt like diplomats as well as editors. After a lot of hard work and a lot of talking, we eventually managed to formulate the text in such a way that everyone could agree with it”, says Berger proudly. 

Publication

In October 2024, there will be an international meeting in Brisbane, Australia, and it is expected that the new standard will be published at that time. After that, countries will need to decide whether they will implement the standards. Berger believes this will not be easy in all cases: “Not all countries are at the same point.” He expects the new ISO standards to be incorporated into the European standards of the CEN and the national standards of the NEN. Meuwly believes the NFI is ready: “We are a small country. The fact that Dutch people were able to contribute to the new standards as lead editors in two groups demonstrates how other countries view our work. I believe we already meet most of the requirements of the standard. So I have no concerns about implementation at the NFI, and we are also keen to help other partners in the Netherlands and abroad to take that step.”