ABSTRACT
In the aftermath of a near-decade of accusations, forensic science is still struggling to digest recommendations, synthesize and integrate new research, implement remediation measures, and generally course-correct in the dozens of manners expected by its critics and detractors. In February 2009, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released its report on forensic science that created seismic waves within the profession, instigated relentless commentary in legal journals, and prompted sensationalistic headlines in the mainstream media. A number of forensic scientists have been disgraced over unethical behavior, and entire crime labs have suffered from individual practitioners' missteps. The 2009 NAS report's call for independence of crime labs and medicolegal death investigation offices is designed to eliminate examiners' regarding the outcome of forensic examinations. There are ongoing efforts to address the terminology used by forensic scientists in their reports and in their court testimony. But the larger issue is the lack of science, or the presence of pseudoscience in forensic science disciplines.
