Priority Action Report

Biology

Biology Data Interpretation and Reporting Committee

Mechthild Prinz

February 22, 2016
Subcommittee Leadership

Position Name Organization Term Email

Chair Robyn Ragsdale, Ph.D. FDLE 4 robynragsdale@fdle.state.fl.

us

Vice Chair Mechthild Prinz, Ph.D. John Jay College of 

Criminal Justice 

2 mprinz@jj.cuny.edu

Executive 

Secretary

Catherine Grgicak, Ph.D. Boston University 

School of Medicine

3 cgrgicak@bu.edu

2
Subcommittee Members

# Name Organization Term Email

1

Todd Bille ATF 3 todd.bille@atf.gov

2

Lisa Marie Brewer Glendale Police Department 3 lbrewer@glendaleca.gov

3 Michael Coble, Ph.D. NIST 4 mcoble@nist.gov

4

Kathleen Corrado, Ph.D. Onondaga County Center for Forensic Sciences 2 kcorrado@ongov.net

5

Julie French GE Health Care 4 julie.french@ge.com

6

Bill Gartside San Bernardino County Sheriff's 3 bgartside@sbcsd.org

7

Rebekah J. Kay Utah Bureau of Forensic Services 4 rkay@utah.gov

8

Susannah C. Kehl FBI 2 susannah.kehl@ic.fbi.gov

9

Shawn Montpetit San Diego Police Department 3 smontpetit@pd.sandiego.gov

10 Steven Myers California Department of Justice Jan Bashinski

DNA Laboratory

3 Steven.Myers@doj.ca.gov

11 Jeff Nye Michigan State Police 2 nyej1@michigan.gov

12 Peg (Margaret) Schwartz, 

Ph.D.

Vermont Forensic Laboratory (retired) 2 mbschwartzvt@gmail.com

13 Carl Sobieralski Indiana State Police Laboratory

Department

4 csobieralski@isp.in.gov

14 Joel Sutton DFSC -USACIL 2 joel.d.sutton2.civ@mail.mil

15 Christian G. Westring, Ph.D. NMS Labs 3 christian.westring@NMSlabs.com

16 Charlotte J. Word, Ph.D. Self Employed as a Private Consultant 3 cjword@comcast.net

17 Sandy Zabell, Ph.D. Northwestern University, Department of 

Mathematics

4 zabell@math.northwestern.edu

3
Affiliates

Name Organization/Employer Task Group

Dr. Michael Adamowicz University of New Haven Probabilistic Genotyping

Dr. James Curran University of Auckland, NZ Probabilistic Genotyping

Dr. Adele Mitchell Merck Probabilistic Genotyping

Mark Powell San Francisco Police Department Crime Lab Probabilistic Genotyping

Dr. Charles Brenner Self Software Validation

Malena Jimenez STACS DNA Software Validation

Dr. Desmond Lum Rutgers University Software Validation

Jessica Charak Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Mixture Interpretation

Kristen Fripp Georgia Bureau of Investigation Mixture Interpretation

Marla Kaplan Oregon State Police Mixture Interpretation

Beth Ordeman Pinellas County Forensic Laboratory Mixture Interpretation

4
Biological Data Interpretation

and Reporting Committee

This Subcommittee (formerly called DNA Analysis 

2) will focus on standards and guidelines related 

to forensic DNA laboratory interpretation. 

5

The Biological Data Interpretation Committee will 

focus on establishing best practices, guidelines, and 

standards for inclusion in the OSAC Registry. The 

goal is to foster quality and consistency within the 

forensic community through the standardization of 

scientifically valid methods of interpretation, 

statistical analysis and reporting of biological results. 
Summary of Standards/Guidelines 

Priority Actions

Priority Working Title of Document

1 Validation Standards for Probabilistic Genotyping 

Systems

2 Standards for Validation Studies of DNA Mixtures 

and the Development and Verification of a 

Laboratory’s Mixture Interpretation Protocol

3 Biology/DNA Software Validation 

4 Statistical Interpretation 

6
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 1 Document

Document Title: Validation Standards for Probabilistic 

Genotyping

Scope: These standards are to be used by laboratories for the 

validation of probabilistic genotyping systems related to interpreting 

autosomal STR results.

Objective/rationale: If a laboratory wishes to use probabilistic 

genotyping in interpreting their casework, it must first be 

appropriately validated as with any new method prior to use. No 

standards currently exist for laboratories validating and implementing 

probabilistic genotyping systems. 

Issues/Concerns: No standards currently exist for laboratories 

validating and implementing probabilistic genotyping systems. 

Task Group Name: Probabilistic Genotyping 

Task Group Chair Name: Joel Sutton

Task Group Chair Contact Information: 

joel.d.sutton2.civ@mail.mil

Date of Last Task Group Meeting: 28 Jan 2015

7
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 1 Document

Key Components of Standard:

Developmental validation studies needed

Internal validation studies needed

Sample types to be run with each validation study 

Underlying scientific principles for the method need to be published 

in a peer-reviewed journal for reference

Software modification considerations

8
Task Group/Subcommittee Action 

Plan

Planned Actions

OSAC Process 

Stage (e.g., 

SDO 100) 

Assignee Estimated

Completion Date

Review SAC comments 

and adjudicate 

SDO-300 Task Group 04 Feb 2016

Post to Kavi for BDIRC 

to review and vote on 

changes 

SDO-300 Task Group 

Chair

11 Feb 2016

Submit to SAC for vote SDO-300 BDIRC Chair ?

Priority 1: Validation Standards for Probabilistic Genotyping

9
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 2 Document

Document Title: Standards for Validation Studies of DNA Mixtures and 

the Development and Verification of a Laboratory’s Mixture Interpretation 

Protocol

Scope: These standards are for the design and evaluation of validation 

studies for mixed DNA samples and the development of appropriate 

interpretation protocols for mixtures based on the validation studies 

performed. 

Objective/rationale: Determine standards to allow for verification of a 

laboratory’s mixture interpretation protocol

Issues/Concerns: No existing standards

Task Group Name: Mixture Interpretation Verification

Task Group Chair Name: Carl Sobieralski/Shawn Montpetit

Task Group Chair Contact Information: 

csobieralski@isp.in.gov / smontpetit@pd.sandiego.gov

Date of Last Task Group Meeting: 01/29/2016

10
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 2: Standards for Validation Studies of 

DNA Mixtures and the Development and Verification 

of a Laboratory’s Mixture Interpretation Protocol

Key Components of Standard:

The laboratory shall only interpret mixed DNA data for which there are 

supporting internal validation studies and data, supporting publications 

when available, and relevant and appropriate interpretation protocols in 

the laboratory. 

• The mixture studies performed as part of internal validation studies will 

include representative samples of those to be interpreted in casework

• The data from mixture studies performed by the laboratory shall be 

evaluated and summarized

• The laboratory shall verify and document that the mixture interpretation 

protocols developed from the validation studies generate reliable and 

consistent interpretations and conclusions for the types of mixed DNA 

samples typically encountered by the laboratory

11
Task Group/Subcommittee Action 

Plan

Planned Actions

OSAC 

Process 

Stage (e.g., 

SDO 100) 

Assignee

Estimated

Completion 

Date

Fill in required forms. 

Initiate project.

SDO-0 Task Group 01/29/2016

Move draft document 

to next level (BDRIC, 

Methods SC, RC, SAC)

SDO200/SDO300Task Group 02/05/2016

Priority 2: Standards for Validation Studies of DNA 

Mixtures and the Development and Verification of 

a Laboratory’s Mixture Interpretation Protocol

12
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 3 Document

Document Title: Biology/DNA Software Validation

Scope: This document includes guidelines for the validation of 

software used in a forensic DNA laboratory that impacts the integrity 

of the evidence, the analytical process, interpretations and/or 

statistical conclusions. Additional guidelines and standards may be 

applicable to specialized software packages. 

Objective/rationale: Few standards are available for the validation 

of software used by a forensic DNA laboratory. 

Issues/Concerns: Newly developed or modified software 

programs should be validated prior to implementation. 

Task Group Name: Biology/DNA Software Validation 

Task Group Chair Name: Susannah Kehl

Task Group Chair Contact Information: 

susannah.kehl@ic.fbi.gov

Date of Last Task Group Meeting: Jan 29, 2016

13
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 3 Document: Bio/DNA Software 

Validation 

Key Components of Standard: 

The goal is to provide standards or guidelines for the validation of 

software used by forensic laboratories when conducting forensic 

DNA testing.

Establish standards or guidelines for the validation of software 

programs and upgrades that impact the integrity of the evidence, 

the analytical process, interpretation and/or conclusions.

14
Task Group/Subcommittee Action 

Plan

Planned Actions

OSAC Process 

Stage (e.g., 

SDO 100) 

Assignee Estimated

Completion Date

Provide draft document to 

relevant subcommittees for 

input, revise as appropriate

SDO-0 Susannah Kehl March 1, 2016

Provide draft document to 

resource committees and SAC 

for input, revise as appropriate

SDO-0 Susannah Kehl May 1, 2016

Create Project and fill in 

required forms

SDO-0 Task Group Jan 29, 2016

Submit SDO Submission Form SDO-100 Susannah Kehl Jan 29, 2016

Move draft document to next 

level 

SDO-200/300 Task Group June 1, 2016

Priority 3: Bio/DNA Software Validation

15
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 4 Document

Document Title: Statistical Interpretation

Scope: Description of existing methods and delineating 

appropriate areas of application 

Objective/rationale: State generally accepted methods and 

limitations for statistical analysis of single source and mixed DNA 

profiles

Issues/Concerns: Concerns have been raised about the correct 

application of different statistical approaches used in the 

interpretation of mixtures. 

Task Group Name: Statistical Interpretation

Task Group Chair Name: Sandy Zabell

Task Group Chair Contact Information: 

zabell@math.northwestern.edu

Date of Last Task Group Meeting: January 28, 2016

16
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 4 Document

Key Components of Standard: 

Description of existing methods, and guidance on appropriate 

areas of application 

Note: Our understanding is that SWGDAM will very shortly release 

for comment a substantial revision of its 2010 “SWGDAM 

Interpretation Guidelines for Autosomal STR Typing by Forensic 

DNA Testing Laboratories”. The work of the Task Group has been 

temporarily suspended until this document is available for review to 

avoid duplication of effort.

17
Task Group/Subcommittee Action 

Plan

Planned Actions

OSAC Process 

Stage (e.g., 

SDO 100) 

Assignee

Estimated

Completion 

Date

Review of documents SDO 100 Dr. Zabell May 1, 2016

Drafting of standard SDO 100 Members of TG October 1, 2016

Priority 4: Statistical Interpretation

18
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 5 Document

• Review and standardization of terminology within the field using 

current documentation. 

• Being performed in conjunction with other Biology subcommittees

Task Group Name: Terminology

Task Group Chair Name: Christian Westring, Ph.D.

Task Group Chair Contact Information: 

christian.westring@NMSlabs.com

19
Priority 5: Terminology

Task Group/Subcommittee Action Plan

• SAC level task group encompassing all of the DNA 

subcommittees

• Working on collating terms used in forensic biology analysis

20
Summary of Standards/Guidelines 

Priority Actions

Priority Working Title of Document

1 Validation Standards for Probabilistic Genotyping Systems

2 Standards for Validation Studies of DNA Mixtures and the 

Development and Verification of a Laboratory’s Mixture 

Interpretation Protocol

3 Biology/DNA Software Validation 

4 Statistical Interpretation 

5 Terminology (SAC wide task group)

21
Items of Interest Identified

• Analytical and stochastic thresholds – guidance on 

valid approaches on how to determine these thresholds

• Front end evaluation of DNA profile data – guidance on 

determining suitability for various interpretation 

approaches

• Hypothesis building for LRs – guidance on 

assumptions, numerator, denominator

• Monitoring analysts performance for DNA 

interpretation – guidance on internal assessment of 

interpretation competency including statistical evaluations

• Reporting of DNA conclusions for mixtures – standard 

defining required components

22
Research Gaps Identified - 1

(in order of evidence analysis process)

• More efficient collection of DNA at the scene and from 

evidence items

• Quantitative interpretation of color signals for serology 

testing results 

• More efficient extraction of DNA from evidence items

• Assessment of specific classes of evidence types to 

determine the necessity to quantify DNA before 

amplification 

23
Research Gaps Identified - 2

(in order of evidence analysis process)

• Develop software to tools to assist in characterization 

and utilization of STR typing validation data 

• Software solutions for Y-STR mixture deconvolution

• Research on how to design proficiency tests for complex 

data interpretation and probabilistic genotyping 

• Impacts of laboratory, assumptions, and model 

decisions on continuous likelihood ratios

• Best practices to avoid biases in interpretation of DNA 

profiles

24
Priority Action Report

Biology

Biology Data Interpretation and Reporting Committee

Mechthild Prinz

February 22, 2016
26