Understanding the factors that may impact the transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery of DNA (DNA-TPPR), and the availability of data to assign probabilities to DNA quantities and profile types being obtained given particular scenarios and circumstances, is paramount when performing, and giving guidance on, evaluations of DNA findings given activity level propositions (activity level evaluations). In late 2018 and early 2019, three major reviews were published on aspects of DNA-TPPR, with each advocating the need for further research and other actions to support the conduct of DNA-related activity level evaluations. Here, we look at how challenges are being met, primarily by providing a synopsis of DNA-TPPR-related articles published since the conduct of these reviews and briefly exploring some of the actions taken by industry stakeholders towards addressing identified gaps. Much has been carried out in recent years, and efforts continue, to meet the challenges to continually improve the capacity of forensic experts to provide the guidance sought by the judiciary with respect to the transfer of DNA.
DOCUMENT
The study of human factors in forensic science informs our understanding of the interaction between humans and the systems they use. The Expert Working Group (EWG) on Human Factors in Forensic DNA Interpretation used a systems approach to conduct a scientific assessment of the effects of human factors on forensic DNA interpretation with the goal of recommending approaches to improve practice and reduce the likelihood and consequence of errors. This effort resulted in 44 recommendations. The EWG designed many of these recommendations to improve the production, interpretation, evaluation, documentation, and communication of DNA comparison results.
MULTIFILE
A large, recently published, inter-laboratory study by the ReAct group has shown that there is considerable variability in DNA recovery that exists between forensic laboratories. The presence of this inter-laboratory variability presents issues when one laboratory wishes to carry out an evaluation and needs to use the data produced by another laboratory. One option proposed by the ReAct group is for laboratories to carry out a calibration exercise so that appropriate adjustments between laboratories can be made. This will address some issues, but leave others unanswered, such as how to make use of the decades of transfer and persistence data that has already been published. In this work we present a method to utilise data produced in other laboratories (whether it provides DNA amounts or a probability of transfer) that takes into account inter-laboratory variability within an evaluation. This will allow evaluations to continue, without calibration data, and ensures that the strength of findings is appropriately represented. In this paper we discuss complicating factors with the various ways in which previous data has been reported, and their limitations in supporting probability assignments when carrying out an evaluation. We show that a combination of producing calibration information for new data (as suggested by the ReAct group) and development of strategies where calibration data is not available will provide the best way forward in the field of evaluations given activities.
DOCUMENT
