Widespread practice across the majority of branches of forensic science uses analytical methods based on human perception, and interpretive methods based on subjective judgement. These methods are non-transparent and are susceptible to cognitive bias, interpretation is often logically flawed, and forensic-evaluation systems are often not empirically validated. I describe a paradigm shift in which existing methods are replaced by methods based on relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models; methods that are transparent and reproducible, are intrinsically resistant to cognitive bias, use the logically correct framework for interpretation of evidence (the likelihood-ratio framework), and are empirically validated under casework conditions.
|Journal||Forensic Science International: Synergy|
|Early online date||18 May 2022|
|Publication status||Published - May 2022|
Bibliographical note© 2022 The Author. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license 4.0
Funding: This research was supported by Research England's Expanding Excellence in England Fund as part of funding for the Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics 2019–2023.