If ever there was justification for the government to rethink its planned closure of the UK Forensic Science Service, then today’s verdict for the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence 18 years ago has proved this without reasonable doubt!

A conviction was secured solely on forensic  evidence after the jury was told that the case boiled down to three thing: blood, fibres and hair. These tiny fragments of new evidence emerged in 2007 as scientists conducted a massive “cold case review”. They re-examined clothing taken from the two defendants, Gary Dobson and David Norris, starting a process that eventually led to a guilty verdict for both men. The prosecution had argued that these microscopic clues linked the defendants to the murder.

It is unlikely that the latest forsensic evidence have been readily available if the pioneering FSS’s vital research had not been been supported by our government in past years. The government wants to transfer its forensic operations to private enterprise, which currently makes up 40% of the forensics market, but lacks the experience of the FSS.

I do not see how such a valuable service should be lost on cost grounds alone  and why other options were not considered to make it more financially stable. I am not surprised that the government has been cricitised for not fully considering the implications for criminal justice, research and evidence archives which were “hastily overlooked” for financial reasons.

A group of leading crime-scene scientists have pleaded with the government to reconsider its planned cutbacks for its service, fearing that justice could suffer as a result, and their concerns should be heeded:

This is their letter published in The Times in December 2010:

Sir, The announcement on Dec 14 of an “orderly wind-down” of the UK Forensic Science Service (FSS) by March 2012 has been met with disbelief and dismay by the international community of fellow scientists in the field of forensic genetics. Since Sir Alec Jeffreys first introduced DNA fingerprinting in 1985, forensic DNA analysis has experienced numerous cycles of scientific and technological innovation, to attain its current status as the most recognised discipline in forensic sciences.
It is no exaggeration to say that the FSS has led each of these steps forward to advance forensic DNA-typing to the status of precision, sensitivity and power to individualise that it now commands worldwide. These advances paved the way for the introduction of national DNA databases to routinely match crime scene material to suspects with previous convictions.
Within the framework of the European DNA Profiling Group (EDNAP) and the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI), professional associations created with major input from the FSS, extensive collaborative testing has achieved the level of harmonisation required to exchange data among laboratories across borders, thus providing the scientific basis for the inclusion of DNA profiles in the treaty of Prüm and the legal basis for exchange of data from national DNA databases across Europe. Thus, the FSS has truly been a leader in European forensic practice as well as research.
However, it would be erroneous to ascribe the current financial situation of the FSS to inefficiencies. Instead, this is a result of a privatisation strategy in a limited market with few customers that reduces the provision of state-of-the-art forensic science to the lowest bidder. Purely commercial suppliers in such a competitive structure are forced to reduce costs to levels that cannot support the type of research, innovation and attention to case-specific needs that has characterised the commitment to service shown by the FSS.
Professional expertise cannot be maintained without continuing research and education. Scientific research always includes the risk of failure, so funding for such research cannot be generated from the income made supplying services in a competitive market. Furthermore, we are completely convinced that certain key services to the justice system cannot be provided on a purely commercial basis, as there will always be special demands for analytical methods particular to the circumstances of the case that cannot be economically offered, but have to be kept in the inventory of methods available in the quest for establishing the scientific facts in the service of justice.
Therefore, we urgently appeal for reconsideration of this decision, and, if it is not reversed, for the UK Government to ensure continuous funding for independent forensic research and development, to protect the independent structure of the national DNA database, to maintain the resources for continuing training and education that are urgently needed in our field, and to secure an impartial system for quality assurance to all providers of forensic services

Yours….

I believe we should be proud of the scientific areas in which we excel and do our utmost to preserve it.