RR: The Validity of Cartridge Case Comparison Conclusions Under Field-Based Conditions

2009年，国家研究理事会呼吁科学家在现实的实地条件下量化法医技术的有效性。之所以提出这一呼吁，是因为越来越明显的是，在广泛的法医技术的有效性方面存在着潜在的知识空白。然而，法医学的结果往往被视为客观的，因此它们被执法部门和法院以及其他部门接受和使用。本项目将调查和量化的有效性发射枪子弹的情况下比较，一种常用的法医技术。由于这一技术依赖于对已发射弹壳的目视检查，因此这是一个主观过程，易受人为判断错误的影响。然而，即使这种技术是主观的，它仍然可以是一个有效的技术，如果人类判断错误率低，在各种基于现场的条件下。由于所有的司法鉴定结论都存在一定程度的不确定性，因此本研究可以促进对司法鉴定科学有效性的理解。该项目将在实地条件下进行对照实验，以解决传统的同行审查程序在向执法部门和法院传达之前是否有效地发现法医错误，以及法医错误发生的速度是否因不同枪支品牌产生的工具标记的质量而异。该项目以与决策和认知过程有关的心理学理论为基础，符合对评估法医技术有效性的严格科学测试的要求。该研究将科学方法（包括实验操作）引入弹壳比较有效性的研究，包括该技术的稳健性（在传统同行评审程序的背景下）和可靠性（在不同的实地条件下）。这项研究有可能通过强调沟通法医结论的不确定性程度的重要性来改变法医科学实践，同时确定对传统同行评议程序的潜在威胁。该项目由国家科学基金会和国家司法研究所共同支持。

The National Research Council in 2009 called for scientists to quantify the validity of forensic techniques under realistic, field-based conditions. This call was prompted because it is increasingly apparent there are potential gaps in knowledge about the validity of a broad range of forensic techniques. Yet, the results of forensic science are often viewed as objective, and as such they are accepted and used by law enforcement and courts, and beyond. This project will investigate and quantify the validity of fired gun cartridge case comparison, a commonly used forensic technique. Because this technique relies on visual inspection of fired cartridge cases, it is a subjective process that is susceptible to human judgment error. However, even though this technique is subjective, it can still be a valid technique if the rate of human judgment error is low under a variety of field-based conditions. Because all forensic conclusions involve some degree of uncertainty, this research can advance understanding about the validity of forensic science. The project will use a controlled experiment under field-based conditions to address whether conventional peer-review procedures effectively discover forensic errors before they are communicated to law enforcement and the courts, and whether the rate at which forensic errors occur varies based on the quality of toolmarks produced by different firearm brands. The project is grounded in psychological theory related to decision-making and cognitive processing, and it accords with calls for rigorous scientific tests to evaluate the validity of forensic techniques. The research brings scientific methods (including experimental manipulations) to the study of the validity of cartridge case comparisons, including the robustness (in the context of conventional peer-review procedures) and reliability (across different field-based conditions) of this technique. This research has the potential to transform forensic science practices by emphasizing the importance of communicating the degree of uncertainty that characterizes forensic conclusions, while identifying potential threats to conventional peer-review procedures. This project is jointly supported by National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Justice.