The PCAST report identifies and discusses seven feature-comparison methods. The selected one for this discussion is that of bitemark analysis. This is outlined as a subjective method for studying marks left at the scene by a criminal (Executive Office of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2016). The procedure revolves around comparing such marks with the suspect’s dental impressions. The first step towards effective results is ensuring that the marks were a result of human-biting. This is followed by taking photographs or creating impressions (Burch, Durose, Walsh, & Tiry, 2016).
Unfortunately, there are gaps in standards concerning the issue of similarity. Recent studies support the use of three-dimension laser scanning to analyze marks. These questions should be answered when doing this kind of feature study:
- Is there sufficient evidence to support the presence of a human bite mark?
- Is the mark suggestive of a human bite mark?
- Are distinctive marks and arches identifiable?
The report concludes by explaining why this analysis fails to meet the threshold for scientific standards for reliable or foundational validity. The article, “Forensic Bitemark Identification: Weak Foundations, Exaggerated Claims” supports these findings by PCAST. Its authors acknowledge that bitemark analysis is still in its infancy (Saks et al., 2016). Additional initiatives are, therefore, needed to develop an evidence-based model for pursuing this feature-comparison method. Several actions are critical to this comparison method. Firstly, evaluations are needed to ensure that evidence-based standards are established to make bitemark analysis acceptable (Saks et al., 2016).
Secondly, stakeholders should develop preferable methods to reduce cognitive bias. Personally, I agree with these findings since they acknowledge that there are unique drawbacks in bitemark analysis. A superior framework will result in an advanced protocol and eventually advance the field of forensic science.
References
Burch, A. M., Durose, M. R., Walsh, K., & Tiry, E. (2016). Publicly funded forensic crime laboratories: Quality assurance practices, 2014. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice.
Executive Office of the President President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2016). Report to the president: Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Saks, M. J., Albright, T., Bohan, T. L., Bierer, B. E., Bowers, C. M., Bush, M. A., … Zumwalt, R. E. (2016). Forensic bitemark identification: Weak foundations, exaggerated claims. Journal of Law and Biosciences, 3(3), 538-575. Web.