The National Institute of Justice Grant: Fundamental Research to Improve Forensic Science Accuracy, Reliability, and Validity

NIJ seeks qualified applicants to conduct research to improve the understanding of the accuracy, reliability, and measurement validity in the forensic science disciplines. In this solicitation, the term “validity” refers to the extent of the truth of an inference based upon scientific measurement. In other words, what is the extent to which relevant scientific evidence supports an inference as being true or correct?1 This solicitation does not address subjective, qualitative, or legal analyses of validity.
In February of 2009, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released its NIJ-funded report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward.2 Among other recommendations, NAS outlined the need to improve the scientific foundations of the forensic disciplines, particularly those that are dependent on qualitative analyses and expert interpretation of observed patterns. In recent years, NIJ and other agencies have funded scientific studies in every major forensic discipline, including research to improve the scientific foundations of specific analytical techniques (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/awards/welcome.htm). Some of these research projects have examined accuracy and reliability associated with qualitative disciplines, such as toolmark analysis (e.g., see “Statistical Validation of the Individuality of Guns Using 3D Images of Bullets,” NCJ 213674, Benjamin Bachrach, March 2006), document examination (e.g., see “On the Discriminability of the Handwriting of Twins,” NCJ 222357, Sargur Srihari Ph.D.; Chen Huang M.S.; Harish Srinivasan M.S., Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53, 2, March 2008, 430–446), and latent print examination (e.g., see “Computation of Likelihood Ratios in Fingerprint Identification for Configurations of Three Minutiae,” NCJ 216796, Cedric Neumann M.Sc.; Christophe Champod Ph.D.; Roberto
1 See Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T., Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference, New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 2002. See also Kerlinger, F. N. and Lee, H. B., Foundations of Behavioral Research (Fourth Edition), New York: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning, 2000.
2 As with other NIJ-funded research, and as indicated in the NAS report, the opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in the NAS report are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of NIJ or the Department of Justice.

Puch-Solis Ph.D.; Nicole Egli M.Sc.; Alexandre Anthonioz M.Sc.; Didier Meuwly Ph.D.; Andie Bromage-Griffiths Bs.C., Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51, 6, November 2006, 1255–1266). With respect to impression evidence, NIJ has funded a wide variety of research programs, including studies to examine the permanence of fingerprints, the quantitation of latent print matching, and faster, more accurate capture of ten-print data. In addition, NIJ has funded research to improve the use of forensic and other techniques in the criminal justice system. These studies include an empirical examination of the use of DNA evidence in solving high-volume crimes (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/forensics/dna/property-crime/welcome.htm). Similar efforts include a study of the accuracy of voice-stress analysis for deception detection (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/259/voice-stress-analysis.htm). In addition, many researchers have performed relevant studies to address the scientific foundations of forensic disciplines.

With this solicitation, NIJ intends to extend this prior work to examine the methods used by forensic scientists so that a more complete understanding of the scientific basis of physical, chemical, biological, digital, or other forensic evidence can be achieved. Studies are also needed to develop quantifiable measures of the reliability and accuracy of forensic analyses. Such studies should examine various processes within forensic methods, from initial acceptance and examination of evidence for probative value and quality to final assessment of forensic results. NIJ encourages applicants to propose new approaches to these problems, including quantitation of methods that are currently qualitative in nature.

Researchers may also examine potential systemic errors in forensic practice. Similar to professionals in other fields, forensic scientists may be subject to human observer bias, whether it is related to contextual bias, perceptual errors, or other factors. NIJ encourages applicants to propose studies that examine potential human or systemic errors in forensic practice, including studies that propose to examine the interaction between forensic practitioners and other criminal justice practitioners.

To the greatest extent feasible, NIJ seeks a full understanding of quantifiable measures of uncertainty in the conclusions of forensic analyses, regardless of the sources of uncertainty. Studies should also establish limits of reliability and accuracy that forensic methods can achieve due to varying conditions of forensic evidence. With this solicitation, NIJ does not seek proposals that automate or otherwise improve the efficiency of forensic methods, except when improvements to the understanding or practice of forensic methods may result from the fundamental research programs that are the subject of this solicitation. Applicants are encouraged to review prior research work and improve the breadth and methodology of those studies, if necessary, to develop a full understanding of the reliability and accuracy of forensic techniques.