The commercialization of forensic scientific provision in the UK over the last two decades has had a major role in shaping a changing epistemic identity for forensic scientists working within this jurisdiction. Efforts to match the presumed epistemological standards of the ‘pure’ sciences have been brought together with concerns about value for money in a new approach to the interpretation of evidence, an activity that lies at the heart of criminal investigative practice. A study of the Case Assessment and Interpretation method developed by members of the UK Forensic Science Service is used to show how a technical innovation in the delivery of forensic science services to the police has instantiated these two recent social processes.
Aitken, Colin (2009) ‘Statistics and Forensic Science’, in J. Fraser & R. Williams (eds), Handbook of Forensic Science ( Cullompton, UK: Willan): 387-418.
2.
Aronson, Jay D. ( 2008) ‘Creating the Network and the Actors: The FBI’s Role in the Standardization of Forensic DNA Profiling’, BioSocieties3: 195-215.
3.
Association of Forensic Science Providers ( 2009) ‘Standards for the Formulation of Evaluative Forensic Science Expert Opinion’, Science & Justice49(3): 161-64.
4.
Barclay, A.D. ( 2009) ‘Using Forensic Science in Major Crime Enquiries’ , in J. Fraser & R. Williams (eds), Handbook of Forensic Science (Cullompton, UK: Willan): 337-58.
5.
Bayes, Thomas ( 1763) ‘An Essay Towards Solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London53: 370-418.
6.
Booth, G., F. Johnston & G. Jackson ( 2002) ‘Case Assessment and Interpretation: Application to a Drugs Supply Case’, Science & Justice42(2): 123-25.
7.
Broeders, A.P.A. ( 2006) ‘Of Earprints, Fingerprints, Scent Dogs, Cot Deaths and Cognitive Contamination: A Brief Look at the Present State of Play in the Forensic Arena’, Forensic Science International159: 148-57.
8.
Cole, Simon ( 2001) Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
9.
Cole, Simon ( 2009) ‘Forensics without Uniqueness, Conclusions without Individualization: The New Epistemology of Forensic Identification’ , Law, Probability and Risk8(3): 233-55.
10.
Cook, Roger, Ian Evett, Graham Jackson, Paul Jones & Jim Lambert ( 1998a) ‘A Model for Case Assessment and Interpretation’ , Science and Justice38(3): 151-56.
11.
Cook, Roger, Ian Evett, Graham Jackson, Paul Jones & Jim Lambert ( 1998b) ‘A Hierarchy of Propositions: Deciding Which Level to Address in Casework’, Science and Justice38(4): 231-39.
12.
Cook, Roger, Ian Evett, Graham Jackson, Paul Jones & Jim Lambert ( 1999) ‘Case Pre-assessment and Review in a Two-way Transfer Case’, Science & Justice39(2): 103-11.
13.
Daemmrich, Arthur ( 1998) ‘The Evidence Does Not Speak for Itself: Expert Witnesses and the Organisation of DNA-typing Companies’, Social Studies of Science28(5/6): 741-72.
14.
Dean, Mitchell M. ( 1999) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society ( London: Sage Publications).
15.
De Finetti, Bruno ( 1937) ‘La prévision: ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives’, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré7: 1-68. Translated as ‘Foresight: Its Logical Laws, Its Subjective Sources’, in H.E. Kyburg & H.E. Smokler (eds) (1964), Studies in Subjective Probability ( New York: Wiley): 91-158.
16.
Evett, Ian ( 1984) ‘A Quantitative Theory for Interpreting Transfer Evidence in Criminal Cases’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series C33: 25-32.
17.
Evett, Ian ( 1986) ‘A Bayesian Approach to the Problem of Interpreting Glass Evidence’, Journal of the Forensic Science Society26: 3-18.
18.
Evett, Ian & Helen Joyce ( 2005) ‘Career Story: Consultant Forensic Statistician’ , Significance: 34-37.
19.
Ferlie, Ewan, Lynn Ashburner, Louise Fitzgerald & Andrew Pettigrew ( 1996) The New Public Management in Action ( Oxford: Oxford University Press).
20.
Fienberg, Stephen. E. ( 2003) ‘When Did Bayesian Inference Become "Bayesian"?’Bayesian Analysis1(1): 1-41.
21.
Fienberg, Stephen E. ( 2008) ‘The Early Statistical Years: 1947-1967. A Conversation with Howard Raiffa’, Statistical Science23(1): 136-49.
22.
Finkelstein, Michael O. & William B. Fairley ( 1970). ‘A Bayesian Approach to Identification Evidence’ , Harvard Law Review83(3): 489-517.
23.
Forensic Science Service ( 2001) Annual Report (Birmingham: The Forensic Science Service).
24.
Forensic Science Service (2009) ‘Forensic Science Service Company’. Available at: www.forensic.gov.uk/html/company/ (accessed 30 November 2009).
Garland, David ( 2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
27.
Gerlach, Neil ( 2004) The Genetic Imaginary: DNA in the Canadian Criminal Justice System (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).
28.
Gigerenzer, Gerd, Zeno Switjtink, Theodore Porter, Lorraine Daston, John Beatty & Lorenz Kruger ( 1989) The Empire of Chance: How Probability Changed Science and Everyday Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
29.
Golan, Tal ( 2004) Laws of Men and Laws of Nature: The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in England and America (Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press).
30.
Griffiths, Roy ( 1988) "Does The Public Service Serve?" Public Administration66: 195-204.
31.
Halfon, Saul ( 1998) ‘Collecting, Testing and Convincing: Forensic DNA Experts in the Courts’, Social Studies of Science28(5/6): 801-28.
32.
Harvey, David ( 2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism ( Oxford: Oxford University Press).
33.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of the Constabulary ( 2002) Under The Microscope Refocused (London : Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of the Constabulary ).
34.
Home Office (1983) ‘Manpower Effectiveness and Efficiency in the Police Service’, Home Office Circular (London, UK: Home Office).
35.
Home Office (2009) Science and Innovation Strategy 2009-12 (London: Home Office Science and Research Group).
36.
Jackson, Graham ( 2000) ‘The Scientist and the Scales of Justice’ , Science and Justice40(2): 81-85.
37.
Jackson, Graham (2009) ‘Understanding Forensic Science Opinions’, in J. Fraser & Robin Williams (eds), Handbook of Forensic Science ( Cullompton, UK: Willan): 419-45.
38.
Jackson, G., S. Jones, G. Booth, C. Champod & I.W. Evett ( 2006) ‘The Nature of Forensic Science Opinion - A Possible Framework to Guide Thinking and Practice in Investigation and in Court Proceedings’ , Science and Justice46(1): 33-44.
39.
Jasanoff, Sheila ( 1995) Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
40.
Jasanoff, Sheila ( 1998) ‘The Eye of Everyman: Witnessing DNA in the Simpson Trial’, Social Studies of Science28(5/6): 713-40.
41.
Jasanoff, Sheila ( 2007) ‘Making Order: Law and Science In Action’ , in E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch & J. Wajcman (eds), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edition ( Cambridge, MA: MIT Press): 761-86.
42.
Jeffreys, Harold ( 1939) Theory of Probability (London: Oxford University Press).
43.
Kaplan, Jonathan ( 1968) ‘Decision Theory and the Fact-finding Process’ , Stanford Law Review20(6): 1065-92.
44.
Kennedy, Donald A. ( 2003) ‘Forensic Science: Oxymoron?’, Science302: 1625.
45.
Kingston, Charles R. ( 1965a) ‘Applications of Probability Theory in Criminalistics I’, Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science60(309): 70-80.
46.
Kingston, Charles R. ( 1965b) ‘Applications of Probability Theory in Criminalistics, II’, Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science60(312): 1028-34.
47.
Kirk, Paul L. ( 1963) ‘The Ontogeny of Criminalistics’, Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science54(2): 235-38.
48.
Latour, Bruno ( 1996) Aramis, or the Love of Technology ( Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
49.
Latour, Bruno & Steve Woolgar ( 1979) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage Publications ).
50.
Lucy, David ( 2005) Introduction to Statistics for Forensic Scientists ( Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons).
51.
Lynch, Michael ( 1998) ‘The Discursive Production of Uncertainty: The OJ Simpson "Dream Team" and the Sociology of Knowledge Machine’, Social Studies of Science29(1): 829-68.
52.
Lynch, Michael ( 2004) ‘Circumscribing Expertise: Membership Categories in Courtroom Testimony’, in S. Jasanoff (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order (London & New York: Routledge): 161-80.
53.
Lynch, Michael, Simon Cole, Ruth McNally & Kathleen Jordan ( 2008) Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Fingerprinting (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
54.
Lynch, Michael & Sheila Jasanoff ( 1998) ‘Introduction: Contested Identities: Science, Law and Forensic Practice’, Social Studies of Science28(4): 675-86.
55.
McFarland, Robert ( 2003) Review of the Forensic Science Service ( London: HMSO).
56.
Mirowski, Philip ( 2004) The Effortless Economy of Science ( Durham, N.C. & London: Duke University Press).
57.
National Audit Office (1998) The Forensic Science Service (London: HMSO).
58.
Raiffa, Howard & Robert Schlaifer ( 1961) Applied Statistical Decision Theory ( Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
59.
Roberts, Paul ( 1996) ‘What Price a Free Market in Forensic Science Services? The Organization and Regulation of Science in the Criminal Process’ , British Journal of Criminology36: 37-52.
60.
Rose, Nikolas ( 1996) ‘Governing "Advanced Liberal" Democracies’ , in A. Barry, T. Osborne & N. Rose (eds), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-liberalism and Rationalities of Government (London: University College London Press):
61.
Saks, Michael J. & Jonathan J. Koehler ( 2005) ‘The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Science’ , Science309: 892-95.
62.
Schlaifer, Robert ( 1959) Probability and Statistics for Business Decisions ( New York: McGraw-Hill).
63.
Star, Susan Leigh & James R. Griesemer ( 1989) ‘Institutional Ecology, "Translations" and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39’, Social Studies of Science19(4): 387-420.
64.
Touche Ross ( 1987) Review of Scientific Support for the Police ( London: The Home Office).
65.
Tribe, Lawrence ( 1971) ‘Trial By Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process’, Harvard Law Review84(6): 1329-93.
66.
Wigmore, John Henry ( 1913) ‘The Problem of Proof’, Illinois Law Review8(2): 77-103.
67.
Williams, Robin ( 2007) ‘The Problem of Dust: Forensic Investigation as Practical Action’, in D. Francis & S. Hester (eds), Orders of Ordinary Action (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate): 195-210.
