8127/frame/fm

participation in the profession of criminalistics, be sponsored by two members
in good standing, and agree to abide by the ABC code of ethics. Predictably,
the ABC membership is much smaller than that of the AAFS.
 
b.
Membership in the Profession
Many, perhaps most, professions require actively practicing members to join
the profession formally. This usually involves a demonstration of competence
such as the bar exam for attorneys and the medical boards for physicians.
The forensic profession is uncontrolled in that admission to the profession
is not dictated by any formal process. For us to move forward in our recog-
nition as a legitimate profession, we will need to require practitioners to join
the profession and participate as peers.
However, the matter is complicated by the fact that this is not something
totally under our control. Historically, forensic experts have been qualified
by the courts under very different criteria than a group of peers might use.
The legal requirements that permit experts to comment are quite minimal,
often rest on academic credentials, and don’t require witnesses actually to
demonstrate any specific expertise in the subject about which they have been
legally qualified to testify. The qualifying process is also completely up to a
judge’s discretion. Even if the profession, such as it is, begins to oversee its
members actively, there is nothing to stop an attorney from calling any
witness that he can qualify in a court of law. This is not a trivial matter.
Historically, attorneys have been able to call any witness that they believe
might assist their case. Defense attorneys, in particular, like to use witnesses
8127/frame/ch12 Page 314 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:37 AM

---

Ethics and Accountability — The Profession of Forensic Science
315
from outside of the profession because they will more readily criticize forensic
work.
It is not our intention to suggest that a scientist with only academic
credentials and no forensic experience might not have some valuable insight
into a forensic problem. For example, a fiber chemist from a manufacturing
company might provide useful information regarding the chemical charac-
teristics of a particular fiber, the amount manufactured, and its geographical
distrubution. A molecular biologist who has participated in the development
of a genetic typing system for a forensic application clearly has useful insight
into its capabilities and limitations, and can testify regarding its reliability.
Note, however, that in these examples, the scientist is testifying about his
own specific area of expertise, rather than commenting directly on some
work performed by a criminalist.
The question becomes more difficult when scientific experts who have
no experience working in the forensic field are invited to comment directly
on the forensic implications or interpretation of techniques or evidence.
Courts have historically been quite lenient in permitting such testimony, in