1

Scientific & Technical Review 

Panel Final Report for 

2020-S-0004 

Standard for Interpreting, 

Comparing, and Reporting 

DNA Test Results Associated 

with Failed Controls and 

Contamination Events 

Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science
2

STRP Final Report

2020-S-0004

Standard for Interpreting, Comparing, 

and Reporting DNA Test Results 

Associated with Failed Controls and 

Contamination Events

Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensics Science

February 12, 2021 

Disclaimer: 

This report was produced by an independent Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP). The 

views expressed in the report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. 

Government. Visit the OSAC website for more information on OSAC’s STRP process. 

Scientific & Technical Review Panel Members

• Hal Arkes, Ohio State University

• Lucy Davis, LDH Consultants, LLC

• Erin Forry, Boston Police Department

• Lynn Garcia, Texas Forensic Science Commission

• Kevin Kiesler, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

• Carl Sobieralski, Indiana State Police Laboratory

• Ray Wickenheiser, New York State Police Crime Laboratory System
3

Report Summary:

The Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) for “Standard for Interpreting, Comparing, 

and Reporting DNA Test Results Associated with Failed Controls and Contamination Events” is 

an independent panel appointed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). A 

STRP is established with a range of experts to consider how well a standard meets the needs of

the forensic science, law enforcement, and legal communities, and to recommend improvements 

to the standards under review. The STRP appreciates the efforts of Charlotte Word, Human 

Forensic Biology Subcommittee Member that managed the development of this document, while 

serving as the subcommittee liaison to this STRP during the review process. 

The STRP began its review process with a kickoff meeting on 10/02/2020 and concluded with 

this STRP final report. The panel reviewed the draft standard and prepared comments for the 

OSAC Human Forensic Biology Subcommittee. After a rigorous review process and discussion 

between STRP members and the Human Forensic Biology Subcommittee, the subcommittee 

revised the draft standard in accordance with the panel’s comments. The panel believes that

sections below have been appropriately addressed and provided one recommendation to provide 

a model protocol sample to support implementation of this draft standard. The STRP also noted 

that there are limitations with respect to references to other standards that should be included, but 

have not been finalized at this time. These standards are referred to in the body of the document. 

Report Components:

The STRP reviewed this draft standard using OSAC’s STRP Instructions for Review which 

include the following content areas: scientific and technical merit, human factors, quality 

assurance, scope and purpose, terminology, method description and reporting results. The details 

below contain a brief description of each reviewed content area and the STRP’s assessment of 

how that content was addressed in the Draft OSAC Proposed Standard. 

I. Scientific and Technical Merit: OSAC-approved standards must have strong scientific

foundations so that the methods practitioners employ are scientifically valid, and the

resulting claims are trustworthy. In addition, standards for methods or interpretation of

results must include the expression and communication of the uncertainties in

measurements or other results.

The STRP believes this standard has scientific and technical merit. It provides a structure to 

address failed standards and contamination events if they occur and will ensure these events are 

appropriately documented, addressed, and provide the foundation for continuous improvement. 

The STRP recommends that subcommittees consider providing a model protocol sample to 

implement principles set forth in the standard.

II. Human Factors: All forensic science methods rely on human performance in acquiring,

examining, reporting, and testifying to the results. In the examination phase, some
4

standards rely heavily on human judgment, whereas others rely more on properly 

maintained and calibrated instruments and statistical analysis of data.

The STRP believes that the standard has appropriate wording to address human factors concerns, 

which are part of a larger program to prevent bias. There was a minority opinion in the STRP 

that the following wording be included in the Foreword: “To the extent determination of 

contamination may be influenced by judgmental bias, persons making that determination should 

be shielded from irrelevant information and should be assessed for the accuracy of that 

determination as part of performance monitoring.”

III. Quality Assurance: Quality assurance covers a broad range of topics. For example, a 

method must include quality assurance procedures to ensure that sufficiently similar 

results will be obtained when the methodology is properly followed by different users in 

different facilities.

The STRP believes the standard includes appropriate quality assurance framework and 

documentation to address potential failed controls and contamination events, and that a planned 

approach in advance of these events will provide a reasoned and consistent guidance when 

events occur.

IV. Scope and Purpose: Standards should have a short statement of their scope and purpose. 

They should list the topics that they address and the related topics that they do not 

address. Requirements, recommendations, or statements of what is permitted or 

prohibited do not belong in this section.

The STRP believes the stated scope and purpose are appropriate for this standard. 

V. Terminology: Standards should define terms that have specialized meanings. Only rarely 

should they give a highly restricted or specialized meaning to a term in common use 

among the general public.

The STRP believes the terminology appropriate for this standard’s scope and purpose are 

indicated and defined.

VI. Method Description: There is no rule as to the necessary level of detail in the 

description of the method. Some parts of the method may be performed in alternative 

ways without affecting the quality and consistency of the results. Standards should focus 

on standardizing steps that must be performed consistently across organizations to ensure 

equivalent results. Alternatively, standards can define specific performance criteria that 

are required to be demonstrated and met rather than specifying the exact way a task must 

be done. For example, it may be enough to specify the lower limit for detecting a 

substance without specifying the equipment or method for achieving this limit of 

detection.
5

The STRP noted the method description includes criteria which should be included to address 

failed controls and contamination events in a proactive manner, directing appropriate 

documentation.

VII. Reporting Results: Methods must not only be well described, scientifically sound, and 

comprehensive but also lead to reported results that are within the scope of the standard, 

appropriately caveated, and not overreaching.

The STRP believes the standard provides the appropriate direction when reporting results where 

there is a failed control or contamination event. This section has been appropriately addressed in 

the standard.