8127/frame/fm

particular area, they all handled diverse types of evidence simply by virtue
of the forensic nature of their work. In fact, in the beginning of the 20th
century, it was not uncommon to find “Institutes of Forensic Medicine,” on
the continent in particular, where both pathology and physical evidence
analysis resided.
However, as criminalistics entered its adolescence, it became more com-
mon for scientists already educated in specific disciplines to apply their
particular expertise to the emerging discipline of forensic science. Illustrative
examples include Leon Lattes (blood typing), Calvin Goddard (firearms),
and Albert Osborn (documents). Although these men and many others con-
tributed immeasurably to the specific methods and techniques used in the
various branches of criminalistics, the trend toward specialization also cre-
ated a vacuum in precisely the aspect of forensic science that distinguishes
8127/frame/ch02 Page 41 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:51 AM

---

42
Principles and Practice of Criminalistics
it from other basic or applied sciences. Paul Kirk was the first modern
criminalist to espouse a return to generalist thinking. It is perhaps significant
that Kirk also championed the term 
 
criminalist
to describe the new breed of
expert that would be trained in the University of California at Berkeley
program. Although the designation was probably first contrived by Hans
Gross, Kirk is often credited (or variously blamed) for its current use. Kirk’s
thesis was based on his conviction that the criminalist is an expert in what
he considered to be the defining aspect of criminalistics, individualization
(Kirk, 1953).
In Kirk’s first edition of 
 
Crime Investigation
, published in 1953, he writes
several paragraphs addressing this issue:
Furthermore, a very artificial idea is current regarding the nature of crim-
inalistic specialization, viz., that it must follow either (1) the type of crime,
e.g., homicide, murder, or arson; or (2) the type of evidence, e.g., docu-
ments, firearms, etc. … It is clear that the methods of investigating both
the various kinds of crime, and the various types of evidence, center actually
on methods of establishing identity or non-identity, and, as such involve
the application of common techniques to many types of crime and a large
variety of evidence.
Neither is it necessary that he be an expert in the manufacture of paper
in order to determine whether two pieces of paper are identical. To hold
otherwise is a self-evident delusion, and not more sensible than to say that
a man must be an expert automobile mechanic in order to qualify as a
driver, or that he must know the lumbering industry before he can become
a carpenter.
These difficulties of qualification arise from overlooking the fact that
the expert witness in criminalistics is first and foremost an expert in iden-
tification and comparison. He understands the methods of testing identities
and is qualified to state whether two objects are identical or not, and whether
they had or had not a common origin. He moreover is qualified to evaluate
the significance of his identity.
Although graduates of the U.C. Berkeley program, many of whom found
influential positions in public laboratories, continued to disseminate the
generalist dogma, the idea was never fully embraced outside of the U.S. West
Coast. As the techniques for analyzing different types of physical evidence
became more sophisticated and case load increased, those who believed in
and were trained as generalists have become members of a diminishing
minority. This has been due both to the hiring and training practices of
laboratories worldwide and to the persistent lack of a focused academic
program in forensic science. Due mostly to competitive funding decisions,
rather than lack of student interest, the Berkeley program was deconstructed
in 1995, abdicating the only U.S. program that had offered a doctoral-level
8127/frame/ch02 Page 42 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:51 AM

---

The Evolution of Forensic Science
43
degree in forensic science.* Although a few high-quality criminalistics pro-
grams remain in North America, they offer only the possibility of master’s-
level work. A doctoral program in forensic science is available at Strathclyde
University in Glascow, Scotland, but the absence of such programs from
North American academia is both remarkable and unfortunate. We will
discuss education in forensic science further in Chapter 12.
Because of continual pressure to increase case clearance, analysts are
more often than not hired and trained in a specific technique, such as DNA
or drug analysis; often no training in, or appreciation of, other forensic
disciplines is required or even provided. In the United States, the forensic
community has responded to this growing insulation in the context of board
certification. Before an analyst may test in a specialty, she must first pass a
rigorous exam covering topics taken from all of criminalistics. However,
support for this program is not universal and participation is currently vol-
untary. In addition, as access to true apprenticeship training has decreased,
the lack of academic support for forensic science has become glaring. In