8127/frame/fm

b.
Is Criminalistics an Autonomous Scientific Discipline?
Criminalistics is sometimes regarded, especially by those outside of the pro-
fession, as a bastard child, essentially a parasitic branch of knowledge com-
pletely dependent on the academic sciences for its continued existence
(O’Hara and Osterburg, 1949). In his 1963 monograph, 
The Ontogeny of
Criminalistics
Kirk already had the foresight to address the question of
whether criminalistics is an autonomous branch of learning. In addition to
recognizing the basic attributes that categorize any particular endeavor as
scientific, Kirk inquires whether criminalistics qualifies as an independent
body of knowledge.
Is criminalistics a science?
According to most definitions, a science consists
of an orderly and consistent body of knowledge, based on fundamental
principles that can be clearly stated. Such a body of knowledge allows
prediction as well as interpretation. Recognized sciences are characterized
by research effort that produces constantly increasing theoretical and tech-
nical knowledge. Does criminalistics qualify? It is based on apparently sim-
ple but not clearly enunciated principles of individualization and
individuality. In this sense it does not encroach on other sciences, but is a
separate and unique area. It is unfortunate that the great body of knowledge
which exists in this field is largely uncoordinated and has not yet been
codified in clear and simple terms. The body of knowledge is constantly
being increased by a moderate research effort, largely technical rather than
theoretical. It seems fair to state that criminalistics may now be considered
a science in its own right, but that it lacks at this time the full development
that will allow general recognition. Even in its present state, it allows pre-
diction as well as interpretation. It should be developed so as to achieve full
recognition as a separate scientific discipline.
The situation, unfortunately, hasn’t changed much since Kirk described
it 40 years ago. Technical innovations, especially in instrumentation, have far
outdistanced any attempts to establish a theoretical framework for criminal-
istics as an autonomous discipline. The dearth of, and recent alarming
decrease in, academic programs in forensic science only serves to underscore
the dangers of analysis without a framework for thoughtful interpretation.
As Kirk so succinctly states, “a thoroughly competent investigator without
much equipment is far better off than an incompetent investigator with
8127/frame/ch02 Page 64 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:51 AM

---

The Evolution of Forensic Science
65
unlimited equipment.”* With this volume, we hope to contribute to the
ongoing effort to provide a rational framework within which the results of
forensic comparisons and analyses may be thoughtfully interpreted.