In a soon to be released (now available online) article in the flagship journal of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Dr. Michael Welner and colleagues illustrate an efficient methodology for engaging the expertise of multiple specialties, to ensure more valid and scientifically reliable findings.
Peer-review is a prospective solution to identify bias, inadequate diligence, and outdated scientific standards, before an opinion is presented to the court. As such, it prevents forensic science injustices before they happen. Peer-review is already recognized to assist in the quality control of forensic assessment.
The fallibility of forensic science consultation is an ongoing and major justice concern. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published findings of its research into the forensic sciences in an influential report in 2009. The NAS report cited many inadequacies in the forensic sciences, and spoke to the benefit of peer-review in upgrading the quality of forensic science application to the courts. The report prompted a number of initiatives to reform the forensic sciences, including the formation of the National Forensic Science Commission.
Solutions thus far available, however, continue to overlook 1) the endemic problems within forensic psychiatry of examinations with poor evidentiary foundation 2) how to eliminate biased and misleading reports from otherwise well-trained, highly credentialed specialists 3) how to elevate assessment in all the forensic medical specialties to a qualitative level that replicates the work done by the best clinicians in their hospitals and practices.
Another challenge heretofore overlooked is the varying perspectives that different disciplines may have on the analysis of a specific and legally significant point. Each specialty has its own knowledge base which may be unknown, but relevant to the other. Each specialty may claim primacy. In some instances the best informed specialty is one discipline. In others, however, multiple specialties have relevance. Typical such scenarios in litigation result in lathering court cases with many experts.
However, the Journal of Forensic Sciences article by Dr. Welner and colleagues illustrates how cross-disciplinary peer-review neatly integrates the relevant specialty knowledge and protects experts from overstepping the range of one’s expertise. The linked article demonstrates several case examples of how throughout an evaluation, peer-review serves to prospectively marshal oversight and protect the examination from bias, ensure diligence, and enhance adherence to the scientific understandings of a given area. Experts with complementary or supplemental expertise enhance the expertise of the examiner and confidence in the foundation of the examination.
Multidisciplinary peer-review acknowledges aspects of the case which may cross into a different expertise altogether. Integrating specialists from other disciplines promotes learning in the primary examiner and the honesty of acknowledging what one cannot say. The contribution of the other disciplines is extensive, layered, and imbues the primary examiner with learning to apply within the case. Peer-review, a valued practice in clinical settings, represents a prospective safeguard against human error in assessment and in reporting, before one ever takes the witness stand.
Dr. Welner founded The Forensic Panel with a vision of advancing the integrity of forensic assessment by applying structured oversight. The Forensic Panel was the first forensic practice in America to employ prospective peer-review, with its optimized protocols serving as a model for others that have since followed. With specialists in forensic psychiatry, psychology, neuropsychology, pathology, medicine, toxicology, neuroradiology, and other medical disciplines, The Forensic Panel has a range of experiences in applying multidisciplinary oversight, and reflects, refines, and sets the example for best practice in the forensic sciences.
Multidisciplinary peer-reviewed forensic consultation ensures an examination process with dramatically upgraded quality control. As we struggle within the forensic sciences to promote realistic, cost-effective approaches that enable forensic science contributions to be worthy of the court, multidisciplinary peer-review proves to be a significant advance, ready now, with application to the future.
