Chief Scientific adviser not consulted over FSS forensics closure

The Home Office’s chief scientific adviser was not consulted over the closure of the UK Forensic Science Service (FSS), it has emerged.

Bernard Silverman said he was informed in advance but not consulted “as such”.

Dr Silverman was speaking at a hearing in the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into the closure of the FSS.

But he said that he viewed the process as acceptable because it had been taken on legal and commercial grounds.

The government announced last year that the FSS would close, with as many of its operations as possible being transferred or sold off.

Experts have been critical of the decision, saying it could harm the UK’s position as a leader in forensic science.

The service analyses evidence from crime scenes in England and Wales, but has been losing about £2m a month. The FSS is a 100% government-owned company, which is expected to compete in the forensic marketplace.

Asked by the committee’s chair, Labour MP Andrew Miller, whether he had been consulted, Dr Silverman replied: “I was informed and so was [the government's chief scientific adviser] John Beddington… but we weren’t consulted, as such, in advance of the decision being made.

“We were informed so that when the decision was [announced] we were tipped off in advance.

“My understanding at the time, and now, is that the decision was made on legal and commercial grounds. It isn’t within the chief scientific adviser’s remit to advise on those matters. Therefore, I didn’t see the process as unreasonable.”

In response to the same question, the UK Forensic Science Regulator, Andrew Rennison, commented: “I was aware, a couple of weeks beforehand, but was not consulted. But I am being consulted now.”

By Paul Rincon BBC News Science reporter, Read the full article at the BBC News

Overuse of the term ‘forensic’

The definition of “forensic” literally means pertaining to the law, however the term has become increasingly overused by the media and consequently the general public.  There are an exhaustible list of techniques from different ologies (read disciplines) such as fingerprinting or archaeological methods that can be used forensically to investigate crimes.

Often the term is misused to describe methods or techniques that are not related to a court of law simply because it is cool.  The distorted use of the term has been amplified by the CSI effect and the media in general, adding to the misinterpretation of your average Joe Bloggs.

My gripe is when television programmes, newspapers and online media make reference to using forensic techniques for other uses…..What? For example using forensic techniques for an archaeological excavation on episodes of Channel 4’s Time Team. Despite the fact that time team has done a lot to bring archaeology to the masses, and for that we should be thankful, if you are no longer using a technique with legal implications then it ceases to be forensic.

Using forensic techniques in other fields actually means using methodologies that have been developed specifically for forensic science in other fields. Meticulously searching for a needle in a haystack does not mean that you are looking for it forensically. Likewise if you happen to come across a bronze age skeleton, say in your back garden, that was supposedly murdered it, this does not automatically warrant the title of forensic but is in fact archaeological since it is more than one hundred years old.

Those who know better should take it upon themselves to make better use of the word “forensic” in its proper context in order to ensure continued precision within the field and outside.