Anal Bioanal Chem (2009) 394:1987–1993
DOI 10.1007/s00216-009-2598-y
ABCS OF TEACHING ANALYTICAL SCIENCE
Current issues in forensic science higher education
Lawrence Quarino & Thomas A. Brettell
Published online: 10 February 2009
# Springer-Verlag 2009
Introduction
An assessment of the forensic sciences, published in 1999
by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), described the
educational and training needs of the forensic science
community as “immense” [1]. This immense need has
developed over the last two decades by the unprecedented
demand of the criminal justice system for crime laboratory
services due in large part to the implementation of forensic
DNA testing. As a result of this demand, local, state, and
federal government resources have been allocated to
expand laboratory services, although the availability of
individuals with the requisite skills and education to fill
new positions is severely limited. To try and meet this need,
undergraduate and graduate forensic science programs have
developed at an unparalleled rate over the last decade in
both the USA and abroad. An examination of the American
Academy of Forensic Sciences website (www.aafs.org)
reveals over 100 forensic science programs leading to a
bachelor’s degree in the USA with 30 such programs listed
from other countries. In addition, over 50 programs leading
to a master’s degree in forensic science or a related
discipline in the USA alone are listed. Considering that
the vast majority of these programs did not exist a decade
ago is cause for optimism about the future of forensic
science. At the same time, however, this rapid growth is
cause for concern about the quality of many of these
programs.
L. Quarino : T. A. Brettell (*)
Forensic Science Program, Department of Chemical and Physical
Sciences, Cedar Crest College,
100 College Drive,
Allentown, PA 18104-6196, USA
e-mail: Tabrette@cedarcrest.edu
URL: www.cedarcrest.edu
Do we need forensic science academic programs?
For those who believe that forensic science is an applied
discipline without any real theoretical underpinnings of its
own, academic programs are likely to be viewed as
redundant given that programs in the natural sciences are
going to provide the same necessary framework for those
wishing to become forensic science practitioners. Although
it cannot be questioned that forensic science has taken
technologies from other fields and applied them to criminal
investigations (i.e., PCR, pyrolysis), a true understanding of
forensic science can only be achieved with the realization
that these technologies are all used for purposes that are
unique to forensic science, namely linkage, individualiza-
tion, and reconstruction. Without forensic science educa-
tion, these ideas are often lost which can prevent forensic
science from realizing its true potential. Practitioners with
simply a background in chemistry can easily identify the
chemical composition of a fiber taken from a clothing of a
suspected perpetrator of a crime, but often the context of
the crime itself is lost. For instance, not only will the
identification of the fiber help link the suspect with a
victim, but knowledge of how many fibers were found, how
many different types were found, and where they were
found all provide the context needed for a potential
reconstruction of the event. Far too often, the importance
of this type of information is not considered in a forensic
science laboratory. In many ways, forensic science could be
considered the cousins of disciplines such as astronomy and
geology considering that these disciplines all use “proxy”
data to reconstruct past events, i.e., they are in a sense
“historical sciences”. The type of proxy data each of these
disciplines use (astronomy uses light to understand the
universe, geology uses climate and strata to understand the
formation of the earth, forensic science uses physical
1988
evidence that can be biological or manufactured) and the
time frames involved (from the relatively short term for
forensic science, millions of years for geology, and billions
of years for astronomy) are different, the reconstructive
aspect is the same [2]. What makes forensic science unique
even from its cousin disciplines is the goal of individ-
ualization in its application. As Paul Kirk stated, “crim-
inalistics is the science of individualization” [3]. The
individualization (or at least the attempt) of physical
evidence (through the application of chemical, biological,
and physical methods) allows for the reconstructive aspect
of forensic science to occur. Without an appreciation of the
foundational principles of the science, the full potential of
forensic science cannot be realized even with all the recent
advances of the last two decades. As articulated by Kirk in
1963, forensic science as both a science and a profession
requires the development of forensic science educational
programs that emphasize these principles [3].
One additional aspect that necessitates forensic science
academic programs is those curricular components that deal
with the law–science interface that is profoundly unique to
forensic scientists. Like all scientists, forensic scientists
deal with the concept of scientific proof in generating
conclusions. Scientific conclusions are objective and are
often grounded in statistical analysis. It is often a difficult
task for particularly the young forensic scientist who in
dealing with the criminal justice system is confronted with
the concept of “legal” proof, which is contrary in its
approach to that of scientific inquiry. Since legal proof is
generated in an adversarial system and is grounded in the
subjective concept of “beyond a reasonable doubt” (at least
in the US system of justice), the forensic scientist is
confronted with the specter of two competing value
systems. The endless array of ethical dilemmas that may
be presented to the forensic scientist in such a forum
requires study that will develop the skills necessary in these
situations [4]. Such study (including concepts of ethics both
traditional and professional) should be a component of
every forensic science academic program.
Who should teach forensic science?
Forensic science is often looked upon with skepticism in
nonforensic science academic circles. Unlike other scien-
tific disciplines, forensic science did not originate from a
culture of research but rather academicians and medical
specialists applied their knowledge of basic science to
questions of criminal activity [5]. As a result of this
historical difference, many academicians may fail to see
the value of forensic science as a discipline.
Additional factors also contribute to this skepticism.
First, unlike other scientific academic programs, forensic
L. Quarino and T.A. Brettell
science academic programs are often marketed as prepro-
fessional programs because of the perceived applied science
view. In addition, a lack of Ph.D. programs in forensic
science coupled with limited opportunities for funding for
forensic science research, as compared to other scientific
disciplines, contribute to the perception that forensic
science academic programs are not part of the legitimate
scientific educational landscape. A survey of federal
funding for research and development indicates that
approximately 0.01% of total funding in 2007 went to
forensic science-related research [6, 7]. The results of this
survey are presented in Fig. 1. Several articles critical of
forensic science have also been published further biasing
judgments [8, 9]. For those who are skeptical, forensic
science programs, if they are to exist at all, should be taught
by natural scientists since they are the best-prepared
professionally and historically to fully explain the science
beyond the discipline. Unfortunately, those who teach
forensic science but who are unfamiliar with the discipline
from the perspective of a professional often stay one
chapter ahead of the students in the textbook in their
knowledge base.
Many forensic science practitioners hold the contrary
view that only those actively engaged in the discipline
should teach forensic science because they are the best
equipped to teach the subtleties of the profession to
students. It is probably correct that the only individuals
truly capable of explaining the culture of casework and
expert testimony are those who have practiced it. The
downside with this view is that often experience is not
always the best teacher as evidenced by the fact that
experience does not always correlate with success on
proficiency examinations [10]. Although these reported
problems are not emblematic of the competency of most
practicing forensic scientists, they do point out that
problems with certain aspects of the discipline may exist.
Forensic scientists who have been doing something for so
long may not realize that what they are doing can be
improved on. Relying strictly on experience as the chief
arbiter of academic competency in forensic science educa-
tion produces the possibility of indoctrination among
students.
Perhaps the best model for forensic science education is
a hybrid of the two schools of thought. Academicians from
areas of science other than forensic science may offer
unique perspectives to improving the practice of forensic
science. Many new areas of inquiry, such as statistical and
principal component analysis of analytical interpretations
involving pattern recognition, have been investigated and
reported in forensic science journals by nonforensic
scientists who teach in forensic science programs [11].
Having forensic science academic programs that combine
forces of forensic science professionals with other scientists
Current issues in forensic science higher education
Fig. 1 Federal obligations for 30,000
research, projected and awarded,
in millions of US dollars for
fiscal year 2007–2008, by field
of science and engineering
(courtesy of M. Houck, West 25,000
Virginia University)
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Life Engineering Physical Environmental Math and
sciences
who are interested in forensic science, particularly in the
area of research, offer the advantage of molding the
theoretical with the practical. One way to foster this
relationship is for forensic science laboratories and aca-
demic programs to adopt exchange sabbatical programs.
The forensic science faculty will become better acquitted
with the culture of casework, while forensic science
professionals (who might one day consider entering
academia) can become accustomed to academic culture,
particularly research. Although most laboratory directors
will probably balk at this suggestion (laboratory manpower
and resources are already dangerously stretched in some
areas), it is in the long-term best interest of the profession.
Although research is not part of a forensic scientist
jurisdictional mandate, it is part of their scientific mandate
and necessary for advancement of the profession.
Unfortunately, many forensic science professionals are
dissuaded from entering a career in academia because of
traditional-based rules for hiring and tenure. Many institu-
tions refuse to consider professional experience other than
academic when offering faculty rank and salary. It is not
likely that someone with 20 years of forensic science
experience will accept the typical salary offered a newly
minted Ph.D. straight out of graduate school. Furthermore,
the opportunity for tenure-track status is not available in
most institutions for individuals without terminal degrees in
1989
4 2.
Other Psychology Social Forensic Forensic
sciences sciences computer sciences sciences sciences sciences
sciences , DNA , non-
the sciences. Considering that most forensic science
practitioners do not possess doctorates, tenure-track is often
not available, greatly reducing the incentive for otherwise
qualified individuals from entering an academic position.
Arguments stating that forensic science is a growing
discipline and that there are very few opportunities to
obtain a Ph.D. in forensic science have, however, been
successfully made in support of putting a non-Ph.D.
candidate on tenure-track on rare occasion. This logic
dictates acceptance that forensic science is a unique
discipline and that attracting the best-qualified individuals
for faculty positions is the overriding concern. However,
this is the exception and not the norm, greatly reducing the
pool of eligible individuals who can make a positive
contribution to forensic science education. This thinking
hinders the development of many forensic science academic
programs.
Forensic science education: an historical perspective
Preceding the millennium, the quality of forensic science
academic programs was in serious question. Many believed
that poor forensic science education was a cause for
substandard performance in forensic science laboratories
[12]. Since forensic science programs during this era had
1990
modest enrollments, university support for such programs
was limited. Few if any programs could afford the faculty
and staff to cover all the disciplines in forensic science
necessary for a coherent curriculum [13]. As a result,
forensic science faculties typically shouldered heavy teach-
ing loads, were disproportionately composed of adjuncts,
and were not highly regarded by academics in other areas
[14]. In fact, the number of academic forensic science
degree programs actually declined in the 1980s to approx-
imately 15 (down from a previous high watermark of 25 in
1978) [13]. Students in such programs were often consid-
ered not the strongest in the institution [15].
Equally skeptical of forensic science academic programs
during this time period were administers of professional
forensic science casework laboratories. A survey of
members of the American Society of Crime Laboratory
Directors (ASCLD), published in 1988, showed the
educational background most preferred for a career in
forensic science consist of a bachelor of science degree
with a major chemistry component and a master of science
degree in forensic science. Additional comments also
suggested the preference for candidates with a strong
background in chemistry and a general distrust of those
candidates with a bachelor of science in forensic science as
a terminal degree unless it has a strong hard science
component [16]. Another survey also published in 1988
showed similar findings. Results of this survey indicated
that laboratory managers were equally divided about the
ability of a forensic science graduate program to provide a
better source of new employees than those coming from
more traditional chemistry backgrounds [17].
Similar views of crime laboratory directors were also
reported a decade later. The majority of crime laboratory
directors in this study require applicants to have at
minimum a bachelor of science with a preference for
chemistry or biochemistry degrees. Candidates with degrees
in forensic science were less desired unless the academic
program required a substantial number of chemistry and
other natural science courses [18].
The level of suspicion in the quality of forensic science
programs (and by extension those who graduated from
them) from the professional community may be explained
by the fact that many of the programs existing during this
time were housed in criminal justice academic departments
which often did not possess the scientific expertise or
facilities necessary to produce a competent workforce.
Compounding the problem was that there was no uniform
or core curriculum for forensic science specified by either
the academic or professional community [19]. Until the rise
of accreditation of practicing forensic science laboratories
in the 1990s, there were also no codified standards of
practice in forensic science toward which an educational
L. Quarino and T.A. Brettell
program could be developed. This would change in the new
century.
The development of quality standards in forensic
science education: TWGED and FEPAC
In response to the recognition of shortfalls in forensic
science education and the proliferation of academic
programs due to increased interest in the science beginning
in the late 1990s, the National Institute of Justice assembled
a panel of 47 experts in 2001 to serve as a Technical
Working Group for Education and Training in the forensic
sciences (TWGED). TWGED published a report titled
Education and Training In Forensic Science: A Guide for
Forensic Science Laboratories, Educational Institutions,
and Students which provided several recommendations
including sample curricular guidelines for undergraduate
and graduate forensic science programs [20]. As a
consequence of this report, the American Academy of
Forensic Sciences (AAFS) in 2002 established an ad hoc
committee, called the Forensic Science Educational Pro-
gram Accreditation Committee, to develop an accreditation
system for forensic science academic programs based on
these curricular recommendations. In 2004, the committee
became an official standing committee of the AAFS at
which time its name was changed to the Forensic Science
Educational Program Accreditation Commission (FEPAC).
The commission is composed of five forensic science
academicians, five forensic science practitioners, and one
public member.
FEPAC accredits forensic science education programs
that lead to a bachelor’s or master’s degree in forensic
science or in a natural science with a forensic science
concentration. As of December 2008, 12 undergraduate
programs and 7 graduate programs have been accredited by
FEPAC (the list of institutions offering accredited FEPAC
programs along with the degree conferred are listed in
Table 1). Although FEPAC accreditation is voluntary, it is
designed to ensure the quality of academic programs and to
foster excellence in forensic science education. These stan-
dards ensure that accredited programs offer the necessary
scientific and academic rigor needed in order for graduates
to succeed in the modern crime laboratory. The accredita-
tion process has helped many academic programs improve
their curriculums while, for the very first time, providing
criteria for employers to assess applicants. With the de-
velopment of accreditation, it is anticipated that in-house
laboratory training of new practitioners can be shortened
thereby ultimately saving laboratory resources [21]. FEPAC
accreditation standards can be found on the American
Academy of Forensic Sciences website (www.aafs.org).
Current issues in forensic science higher education
The future of forensic science education
With the development of an accreditation system, forensic
science education has improved dramatically in the last
decade and continues to do so. Although the majority of
programs are still not accredited, there appears to be
significantly more interest in accreditation with each
passing year. In 2008, seven programs applied for first-
time FEPAC accreditation. This is the largest number of
applicants the commission has ever received in any year. In
addition, the first group of academic programs accredited in
2004 have all applied for reaccreditation (FEPAC accred-
itation is good for 5 years).
If accreditation can legitimize forensic science education
in the professional community, laboratory directors may
consider more graduates for employment opportunities than
ever before, particularly if they believe that the training
period can be markedly reduced. The benefits to employing
forensic science program graduates go beyond the devel-
opment of a competent workforce. An increase in the
number of practitioners with academic backgrounds in
forensic science will create a workforce with a “stake in the
profession”. It stands to reason that professionals who have
academically studied forensic science may be more inclined
to view an employment position as a “career” rather than
simply as a “job”. These individuals may be open to engage
in opportunities beyond their typical job duties such as
research and become actively involved in professional
organizations or policy groups. By way of example, over
80% of the current members of the board of directors and
staff of the Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists
have either undergraduate or graduate training in forensic
Table 1 List of FEPAC accredited programs with degrees conferred
Albany State University, BS
University of Albany (SUNY), MS
Arcadia University, MS
Cedar Crest College, BS
Eastern Kentucky University, BS
Florida International University, BS, MS
Marshall University, MS
Metropolitan State College, BS
Michigan State University, MS
Ohio University, BS
Oklahoma State University, MS
University of Mississippi, BS
University of New Haven, BS
University of North Texas, BS
Virginia Commonwealth University, BS, MS
West Chester University, BS
West Virginia University, BS
1991
science (author’s personal knowledge). It is also likely that
individuals with a “stake in the profession” will be less
likely to leave forensic science for other professions and
thus help retain qualified practitioners in the field.
A better-educated workforce may allow laboratories to
go beyond task completion and become more focused on
problem solving. As mentioned in the foregoing, the
reconstructive aspect of forensic science is often lost in
typical laboratory work. Laboratory results are often
reported “in a vacuum” without any regard to the context
of the event that produced the evidence in the first place.
Institutional impediments aside, a workforce where a
majority of practitioners have an academic forensic science
background may allow forensic science laboratories to
better function on the “criminalistics” laboratory model as
opposed to the “clinical” laboratory model. In the crimi-
nalistics model, scientists develop hypotheses based on
observations from physical evidence and the crime scene
and determine the proper course of testing as opposed to the
clinical model where individuals external to the laboratory
make the key decisions on how physical evidence is
processed [22]. Such an approach will give forensic science
an “investigative” role in criminal investigations and allow
forensic science to be proactive rather than simply
prosecutorial. It is only through the implementation of the
criminalistics laboratory model that forensic science can
reach its full potential.
Legitimizing forensic science education within the
professional community may provide forensic science
educators with a greater opportunity to help develop and
influence public policy in the profession. One of the major
problems with forensic science is the disjointed nature of
the discipline. On many critical issues, no clear consensus
emerges among practitioners. One such area is individual
certification. For 15 years, the American Board of Crimi-
nalistics (ABC) has offered voluntary certification for
laboratory scientists working in forensic science laborato-
ries. Certification is based on the passage of a comprehen-
sive examination, proficiency testing, and continuing
education. The debate on the necessity of individual
certification has raged in the field since its inception and
as a consequence approximately only 10% of all forensic
scientists currently have ABC certification. With greater
influence in the profession, forensic science educators may
be in a better position to advocate for such measures and to
serve as a unifying force in the profession. One suggestion
is to have forensic science educators form a think tank or
advocacy group where policy can be discussed and
consensus disseminated through publication.
The success and recognition of forensic science pro-
grams on the undergraduate and master’s levels may
provide impetus for the development of doctoral programs
1992
in forensic science. Currently, only City University of New
York and Florida International University offer some
semblance of a doctoral program in forensic science,
although neither of these is designated as a doctoral
program in forensic science (City University of New York
offers a doctoral program in criminal justice with a forensic
science track and Florida International University offers a
doctoral program in chemistry with a forensic science
emphasis). Some have commented that the development of
such programs is folly given the impossibility of including
all the disciplines of forensic science in a coherent program
[23]. Those who hold this opinion likely do not recognize
the unifying aspects of forensic science. It is certainly
possible to create coherent forensic science doctoral pro-
grams revolving around the foundational principles
expressed in the foregoing. Furthermore, many common
doctoral programs such as chemistry often require demon-
strations of competency in various disciplines of the subject.
The development of forensic science doctoral programs
will greatly benefit the profession. Doctoral level research
can be performed not only on application of existing
technologies to forensic science problems, but on address-
ing those aspects of forensic science that have been
believed but not ever scientifically proven. For instance,
greatly needed research into the development of statistical
models to finally prove the uniqueness of fingerprints,
handwriting, or accidental markings often found in tire or
footprint evidence can be done in doctoral programs.
Furthermore, the validity of long-held concepts such as
the Locard exchange principle [24] can also be empirically
studied. The development of doctoral programs may also
influence public sources of funding to provide more
financial support to forensic science research.
Doctoral programs could also produce forensic science
educators that are so badly needed, given the current
number of academic programs. In much the same way that
the doctoral program in criminology at the University of
California at Berkeley created a generation of forensic
science leaders during the middle part of the twentieth
century, new doctoral programs must be developed to
produce the same kind of leaders in the new century. Given
the paramount role that forensic science now plays in the
L. Quarino and T.A. Brettell
criminal justice system and the extent that the discipline has
recently grown, a lack of forensic science leaders may
provide opportunity for others to dictate the future of
forensic science. It is a critical necessity that forensic
science develop its own leaders to ensure that forensic
science is reaching its maximal potential and fulfilling its
societal obligation.
References
1. National Institute of Justice (1999) Forensic sciences: review of
status and needs. National Institute of Justice, Washington DC
2. Houck MH, Siegel JA (2006) Fundamentals of forensic science.
Elsevier, Burlington
3. Kirk P (1963) J Crim Law Criminol Police Sci 54:235–238
4. Peterson JL (1988) J Forensic Sci 33:1081–1085
5. Thorwald J (1966) Crime and science. Harcourt, New York
6. National Science Foundation Division of Science Resource
Statistics (2005–2007) Survey of federal funds for research and
development. National Science Foundation, Arlington VA
7. National Institute of Justice (2007) Awards. National Institute of
Justice, Washington DC
8. Gabel J, Wilkinson (2008) “Good” science gone bad: how the
criminal justice system can redress the impact of flawed
forensics.59 Hastings LJ 1001
9. Kennedy D (2003) Science 302:1625
10. Evett IW (1996) Sci Justice 36:118–122
11. Petraco NDK, Gil M, Pizzola PA, Kubic TA (2008) J Forensic Sci
53:1092–1101
12. Jonakait RN (1991) Harv J Law Tech 4:109–191
13. Gaensslen RE, Lee HC (1988) J Forensic Sci 33:1069–1070
14. Peterson JL, Angelos SA (1983) J Forensic Sci 28:552–559
15. Peterson JL, De Forest PR (1977) J Forensic Sci 22:17–33
16. Siegel JA (1988) J Forensic Sci 33:1065–1068
17. Higgins KM, Selavka CM (1988) J Forensic Sci 33:1015–1021
18. Furton KG, Hsu YL, Cole MD (1999) J Forensic Sci 44:128–132
19. Bradford LW (1980) J Forensic Sci 25:902–907
20. National Institute of Justice (2004) Education and training in
forensic science: a guide for forensic science laboratories,
educational institutions, and students. National Institute of Justice,
Washington DC
21. National Institute of Justice (2006) Addressing shortfalls in
forensic science education. National Institute of Justice, Wash-
ington DC
22. De Forest P (1999) Sci Justice 39:196–208
23. Blanke RV (1985) J Forensic Sci 30:309
24. Locard E (1939) Manual of police techniques, 3rd edn. Payot,
Paris
Current issues in forensic science higher education
Lawrence Quarino
is an Associate Professor at Ce-
dar Crest College in Allentown,
PA and is the Director of both the
undergraduate and graduate fo-
rensic science programs. Prior to
his academic appointment, he
worked as a forensic science
practitioner for 15 years with
both the New York City Medical
Examiner’s Office and the New
Jersey State Police. He currently
serves as a commissioner on the
Forensic Science Educational
Programs Accreditation Commission (FEPAC) and is a diplomate
with the American Board of Criminalistics.
1993
Thomas A. Brettell
is a retired Director of the New
Jersey State Police Forensic Science
Laboratory System, is Assistant
Professor of Chemistry at Cedar
Crest College, with primary teach-
ing responsibilities focused on ana-
lytical and forensic chemistry. His
interests include developing labora-
tory exercises in forensic chemistry
and seeking innovative methods that
will help students better understand
analytical chemistry. Furthermore,
he maintains an active research
group in which undergraduate and master’s students examine various
applications of analytical chemistry to current forensic science issues.