J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 1 of 18

The National Commission on Forensic Science

and the Organization of Scientific Area Committees

John M. Butler

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA

Abstract

In early 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) launched the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) and the 

Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) to aid efforts in strengthening forensic 

science in the United States. NCFS is a two-year renewable federal advisory committee to DOJ 

with a diverse set of stakeholder perspectives that provide views and policy recommendations 

to the Attorney General. The NIST-led OSAC effort is being established to provide leadership in 

developing discipline-specific standards of practice. Ultimately standards and guidelines that 

populate an OSAC registry will enable accreditation bodies to audit forensic science service 

providers to these discipline-specific forensic science standards of practice.

This article describes objectives and duties, membership, and first-year activities of the NCFS 

and the OSAC efforts. Slides presented on this topic October 1, 2014 at the 25th International 

Symposium on Human Identification (ISHI) are available at 

http://www.nist.gov/forensics/upload/JB-NCFS-and-OSAC-ISHI2014.pdf. 

Introduction

The development of a quality infrastructure for forensic science was a key component of some 

of the reforms anticipated in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2009 report entitled 

“Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward” (NAS 2009). In 

response to needs for improvement in forensic science disciplines that were cited in the NAS 

report and as a follow-up to efforts made from 2009 to 2012 by a White House National Science 

and Technology Council Subcommittee on Forensic Science (SoFS), the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a 

partnership in February 2013 that specified the establishment of a National Commission on 

Forensic Science (NCFS) and development of “guidance groups” now termed the Organization 

of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) (NIST/DOJ 2013). 

In my role as Special Assistant to the NIST Director for Forensic Science – a position I have had 

since April 2013, I have been directly involved with the formation and operation of the NCFS 

and OSAC organizations. Here I offer a brief review of activities and accomplishments to date 

for these efforts. 
J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 2 of 18

National Commission on Forensic Science

The NCFS is a federal advisory committee for the U.S. Department of Justice and as such 

follows prescribed rules that include public meetings and a balance of perspectives and 

interests from relevant stakeholders. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 and 

its amendments (FACA 2014) provide strict rules including: (1) meeting notices are posted in 

the Federal Register prior to each meeting, (2) meetings are open to the public, and (3) public 

comments are encouraged and accepted. Meeting summaries and other relevant documents for 

the NCFS are available online at http://www.facadatabase.gov/ (see Committee 83353) as well 

as at the official NCFS website: http://www.justice.gov/ncfs.

Objectives and Duties

The objectives and scope of activities for the National Commission on Forensic Science per its 

charter include providing “recommendations and advice to the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

concerning national methods and strategies for: strengthening the validity and reliability of the 

forensic sciences (including medico-legal death investigation); enhancing quality assurance and 

quality control in forensic science laboratories and units; identifying and recommending scientific 

guidance and protocols for evidence seizure, testing, analysis, and reporting by forensic science 

laboratories and units; and identifying and assessing other needs of the forensic science 

communities to strengthen their disciplines and meet increasing demands generated by the 

criminal and civil justice systems at all levels of government” (NCFS Charter 2013).

Per its charter, the specific duties of the Commission in support of the objectives listed above 

are:

1. To recommend priorities for standards development to the Attorney General;

2. To review and recommend that the Attorney General endorse guidance identified or 

developed by subject-matter experts; 

3. To develop proposed guidance concerning the intersection of forensic science and the 

courtroom;

4. To develop policy recommendations, including a uniform code of professional 

responsibility and minimum requirements for training, accreditation and/or certification;

5. To consider the recommendations of the National Science and Technology Council’s 

Subcommittee on Forensic Science;

6. To identify and assess the current and future needs of the forensic sciences to 

strengthen their disciplines and meet growing demands.

The NCFS is scheduled to meet approximately four times each year – and has done so in 2014. 

The first four meetings were held in Washington, DC (at the Office of Justice Programs building, 

810 7th Street NW) on February 3-4, May 12-13, August 26-27, and October 28-29. Table 1

reviews topics covered in the first four Commission meetings. By FACA rules, the NCFS is a 
J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 3 of 18

two-year renewable committee. The submission of a renewal charter is anticipated to extend 

activities past April 23, 2015. 

Membership

Membership for NCFS was solicited through a Federal Register notice announced at the 

American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) meeting on February 21, 2013 (DOJ 2013a;

DOJ 2013b). More than 325 applicants submitted a curriculum vitae and letters of interest, 

recommendation, and employer support by the time the initial application process closed on 

March 25, 2013. DOJ encouraged submissions from a diverse group of applicants with respect 

to backgrounds, professions, ethnicities, gender, and geography. A joint press release by DOJ 

and NIST announced the initial NCFS membership on January 10, 2014 (NIST/DOJ 2014).

The Attorney General in consultation with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology appointed the initial Commission members following input from a joint DOJ/NIST 

selection committee. NCFS members were selected to achieve a diversity of experiences,

including federal, state, and local forensic science service providers; research scientists and 

academicians; federal, state, local prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges; law enforcement; 

and other relevant stakeholders. 

Commissioners come from 21 states and represent professors of biochemistry, chemistry, 

pathology, physics, sociology, statistics, and law (including a Nobel laureate and National Medal 

of Science recipient); crime laboratory directors; judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys; 

and a sheriff, detective, coroner, medical examiner, victims’ rights advocate, and defendants’ 

rights advocates. In addition to the DOJ and NIST co-chairs, the Commission is composed of 31 

voting and 8 ex-officio Commissioners (Table 2). These individuals serve as Special 

Government Employees without compensation. 

The Commission was initially led by co-chairs James Cole, Deputy Attorney General, and Dr. 

Patrick Gallagher, NIST Director and Acting Deputy Secretary of Commerce. When Dr. 

Gallagher left NIST for a new position in June 2014, Dr. Willie May, Acting NIST Director, 

became the new NIST co-chair of the Commission. In October 2014, James Cole announced 

that he is stepping down as Deputy Attorney General – and his replacement will be determined

in the near future. 

Commission business is primarily directed by the Vice-Chairs and day-to-day operations are 

conducted by support staff in DOJ and volunteers among the Commissioners. Nelson Santos, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Forensic Sciences at the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, and me, serve as the DOJ and NIST Vice-Chairs, respectively. Brette Steele, 

Senior Advisor on Forensic Science and Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General serves 

as the Designated Federal Official (DFO), a position required under FACA rules. Robin Jones is 

the NCFS Program Manager and coordinates meeting details. Additional DOJ staff assists as 

needed and NIST staff provides support with meeting summaries and note taking. 
J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 4 of 18

First Year Activities

As seen in Table 1, a variety of topics have been discussed during the first four meetings of the 

Commission. With the wide-range of experiences among the Commissioners (many of whom 

come from outside the forensic science community), time was required in the first few meetings 

to provide context and background information on many of the topics under discussion. Thus, 

briefings have been provided to the NCFS on accreditation, certification, proficiency testing, 

research & development challenges, past efforts for developing guidance documents, human 

factors and cognitive bias issues, ethics, the most recent census of public crime laboratories, 

and challenges that exist with interoperability using current automated fingerprint identification 

systems. 

Given that the Commission as a whole meets less than eight days total in the course of a year, 

subcommittees have been formed to deliberate and prepare work products to help move 

discussions forward. Six initial subcommittees were created at the first meeting and a seventh 

(Human Factors) was added at the third meeting based on topics discussed in the first few 

meetings. 

Table 3 summarizes the seven subcommittees, their leadership, and the initial issues under 

consideration. Each subcommittee consists of about 20 members including some nonCommissioners to provide outside expertise on specific issues. Most Commissioners serve on 

more than one subcommittee. The subcommittee meeting deliberations are not public, but their 

work products are open to public comment during the time period before and after the meeting 

where these documents are discussed by the full Commission. 

Draft and final work products of the NCFS can be seen on the Commission website: 

http://www.justice.gov/ncfs/work-products. As noted on the NCFS website, anyone wishing to 

submit written public comments on the work products while they are in draft form may go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and enter feedback through Docket No. DOJ-LA-2014-0006. The 

first NCFS work product was completed at the August 2014 meeting and is a directive advising 

the Attorney General to have the Bureau of Justice Statistics develop a survey instrument for 

assessing forensic unit capabilities in law enforcement agencies operating outside traditional 

forensic laboratory environments. 

With the exception of the first meeting, webcasts have been provided in real-time and video 

archives are maintained. Meeting summaries and presentation materials provided to the 

Commissioners are all made publicly available on the NCFS website: 

http://www.justice.gov/ncfs.
J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 5 of 18

Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC)

As noted in Table 4, NIST has been actively working for the past several years to establish an 

infrastructure for scientific guidance groups to strengthen efforts in specific forensic disciplines. 

While the formal name of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) was 

announced at the first NCFS meeting in February 2014, this initial OSAC announcement came 

after seeking input from numerous forensic science community stakeholders.

Mark Stolorow from the NIST Special Programs Office is the Director of OSAC Affairs. John 

Paul Jones from NIST serves as the Associate Director of OSAC Affairs. As will be described 

below, a NIST planning team has met regularly over the past year to establish the operational 

framework for OSAC.

Input Sought and Received from Forensic Science Community Stakeholders

In June 2013, chairs of the 21 Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) met at NIST to discuss 

potential structures for an organization to house what at that time were termed “guidance 

groups.” The initial proposed organizational wiring diagrams shown to the SWG chairs came out 

of previous NIST work based on input from the Standards, Practices, and Protocols Interagency 

Working Group (SPPIWG) of the White House National Science and Technology Council 

Subcommittee on Forensic Science. 

In September 2013, NIST issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in the Federal Register to obtain input 

on the establishment, structure, and support of governance models for discipline-specific 

guidance groups in forensic science. Eighty-two submissions were received in response to the 

NOI in the two months that this request was open (September 27 to November 26). The 

compiled NOI responses may be downloaded from the NIST website (NOI 2013). The listing is 

337 pages in length and represents feedback from individuals in 21 states and four countries 

(United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and Australia) as well as 12 SWGs and 15 other groups 

including the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD), the California 

Association of Criminalists (CAC), the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations (CFSO), 

the International Association for Identification (IAI), the National Association of Criminal Defense 

Lawyers (NACDL), and the Innocence Project. Individuals from more than a dozen forensic 

science laboratories and several companies provided their perspective as well to questions 

asked about how guidance groups should be structured, produce impactful standards, engage 

stakeholders, and support forensic science disciplines. 

From the NOI responses, a NIST forensic science planning team began developing an initial 

framework. This NIST planning team included Susan Ballou, John Butler, Rich Cavanagh, John 

Paul Jones, Mark Stolorow, Melissa Taylor, and Shannan Williams from the Special Programs 

Office (aspects of which were formerly known as the Office of Law Enforcement Standards, 

OLES), Christina Hacker from the Program Coordination Office, Barbara Guttman from the 

Information Technology Laboratory, and Gordon Gillerman and Karen Reczek from the 
J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 6 of 18

Standards Coordination Office. The previous SWG experience of Susan Ballou (SWGDE, 

SWGMAT, SWGDRUG), John Butler (SWGDAM), and Barbara Guttman (SWGDE) was helpful 

in understanding benefits and limitations of previous approaches to creating guidance 

documents for forensic science. 

Some common themes that emerged from the NOI responses include (1) the benefit of 

membership being weighted towards practitioners who understand the problems they are facing 

yet including representatives of the private sector and academia (especially statisticians) to 

provide fresh ideas and perspectives with a goal of strengthening the scientific rigor 

underpinning current and future forensic science protocols, (2) the need to engage professional 

forensic science organizations to coordinate potential policies, standards, and research 

opportunities, (3) the importance of an open membership application process with term-limits for 

all positions to increase the number of individuals who can serve over time and replace nonperformers, (4) the value of documents being transparently developed with ample opportunity 

for public comment, and (5) the role of accreditation bodies to adopt developed standards and 

accredit forensic laboratories against them. 

During late 2013 and early 2014, the NIST planning team met with representatives from 

professional forensic science organizations including the AAFS, the Association of Firearms and 

Toolmark Examiners (AFTE), the International Association for Identification, the National 

Association of Medical Examiners (NAME), and the Society of Forensic Toxicologists (SOFT). 

Feedback received from these discussions was incorporated into the evolving OSAC 

organizational structure. 

Representatives of forensic science accreditation bodies and quality assurance organizations 

visited NIST and provided their input as well. These accreditation bodies include the American 

Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), the American Board of Forensic Toxicology 

(ABFT), the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board 

(ASCLD/LAB), the American National Standards Institute-American Society for Quality (ANSIAQS) National Accreditation Board/Forensic Quality Services (FQS), the College of American 

Pathologists (CAP), and the Laboratory Accreditation Bureau (L-A-B). A representative of the 

Association of Forensic Quality Assurance Managers (AFQAM) was also included in these 

discussions. 

NIST announced the proposed OSAC structure to the National Commission on Forensic 

Science during its first meeting (see Table 1). Suggestions from the NCFS included the addition 

of a Human Factors resource committee, which was added into the organizational structure. At 

the AAFS meeting held two weeks later in Seattle, six NIST presenters gave a more detailed 

review of the OSAC plan. This 75-minute presentation was also webcast and the video archived

at http://www.nist.gov/forensics/aafswebcast.cfm. During a 30-minute question and answer 

period, about a dozen questions from the audience were addressed by the presenters at this 

public meeting, which was attended by over 800 individuals and watched online by many more. 
J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 7 of 18

Throughout 2014, NIST has provided numerous outreach presentations at various scientific and 

professional meetings. Further details on the timeline of activities leading to the OSAC launch 

can be found in Table 4.

Objectives and Duties

The OSAC is designed to create a sustainable organizational infrastructure dedicated to 

identifying and fostering the development of technically sound, consensus-based documentary 

standards and guidelines for widespread adoption throughout the forensic science community. 

Figure 1 displays the organizational structure for OSAC. A Forensic Science Standards Board 

(FSSB) with input from three resource committees – the Legal Resource Committee (LRC), 

Quality Infrastructure Committee (QIC), and Human Factors Committee (HFC) – provides 

direction and guidance to the overall OSAC organization. Discipline-specific subcommittees are 

organized along similar topics into five scientific area committees (SACs): (1) Biology/DNA, (2) 

Chemistry/Instrumental Analysis, (3) Crime Scene/Death Investigation, (4) Digital/Multimedia, 

and (5) Physics/Pattern. With the initial launch of OSAC, membership has been established for 

24 discipline-specific subcommittees. 

The FSSB sets policy, rules, and priorities for the OSAC organization and will approve a 

Forensic Science Code of Practice and manage an OSAC Registry of Approved Standards and 

Registry of Approved Guidelines once these are developed. The three resource committees –

LRC, QIC, and HFC – will provide advice and support across the OSAC committees and 

subcommittees. The SACs are the public access point for the OSAC organization and manage 

work within a specific scientific area to create synergy in related forensic disciplines. Each SAC 

oversees and approves work performed in its subcommittees. Discipline-specific subcommittees 

identify and develop standards and guidelines for their discipline. Task groups may be formed to 

aid the work of a subcommittee. 

For further details about envisioned roles and responsibilities of each member of the OSAC 

organization, see http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osacroles.cfm.

Membership

OSAC membership was solicited through an online application process where applicants 

reviewed roles and responsibilities for specific positions within the organization and then 

designated their primary and secondary interests. For example, an individual may have applied 

to be on the Biology SAC as a first choice or on the Wildlife Forensics subcommittee as a 

second choice. Applicants were also given the opportunity to self-select as a potential chair for 

the committee or subcommittee to which they applied. The quality infrastructure committee, with 

86 applicants who selected the QIC as their primary choice, was the most sought after position 

within OSAC. The FSSB members were selected by NIST, in consultation with DOJ, from 

OSAC applicants. 
J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 8 of 18

During the month that the OSAC application process was initially open (April 11 to May 11, 

2014), there were 1313 applicants with representatives from all 50 states and 21 foreign 

countries (a total of 56 individuals applied from outside the U.S.). Overall, the applicants 

classified their employers as state government (27%), local government (25%), federal 

government (18%), private sector (17%), academic (12%), or federally-funded research and 

development center (FFRDC) (1%). In order of decreasing frequency, job classifications for the 

applicants included practitioner (65%), researcher (11%), educator/trainer (8%), other (8%), 

quality assurance manager (4%), attorney or judge (2%), and R&D technology partner (2%). 

Membership of the FSSB (announced June 26), three resource committees (announced July 

16), and five SACs (announced Sept 3) was appointed by NIST with input from a joint 

NIST/DOJ selection committee. SAC subcommittee membership was appointed following 

selection by the appropriate SAC and approval by the FSSB and NIST/DOJ selection 

committee. 

Announcement of membership in 23 subcommittees (all but digital evidence) was made on 

October 29, 2014 in coordination with an OSAC update presentation at the fourth NCFS 

meeting. Digital evidence efforts, which were initially excluded from NCFS deliberations and 

OSAC participation, became permissible following an announcement from the Commission Cochairs at the third NCFS meeting on August 27, 2014. Membership applications for the digital 

evidence subcommittee were subsequently collected during September 2014 and decisions for 

subcommittee membership are being finalized as this article is being written in November 2014. 

First Year Activities

Efforts with OSAC over the past year have focused on (1) establishing the operational 

framework, (2) informing the community of on-going activities and plans, and (3) selecting and 

training membership. While a number of virtual meetings have been conducted for initial training 

purposes, the first in-person subcommittee meetings are planned for mid-January 2015. Even 

though these subcommittee meetings will not be open to the public, work products will be 

available for public input as subcommittee documents pass through the SAC review process. 

The first SAC in-person meetings will be conducted in a public forum and webcast on February 

16 and 17, 2015 in Orlando, Florida in conjunction with the AAFS meeting. Those interested in 

these SAC meetings should look to http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac.cfm for more details. 

Efforts in Forensic DNA Standards and Guidelines

Guidance on forensic DNA issues has been provided by the Scientific Working Group on DNA 

Analysis Methods (SWGDAM) since 1988 when SWGDAM’s predecessor TWGDAM (Technical 

Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods) was formed by the FBI Laboratory. SWGDAM meets 
J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 9 of 18

semiannually in January and July and, as noted on the SWGDAM.org website

(http://swgdam.org/faq.html), plans to continue to operate with FBI funding: 

Q: What plans exist to transition SWGDAM from its current home in the FBI to the new Organization of 

Scientific Are Committees (OSAC)?

SWGDAM Response: Due to the unique statutory relationship between SWGDAM and the FBI with regard 

to the FBI Director’s Quality Assurance Standards (QAS) for DNA Laboratories, NIST and the FBI have 

agreed that SWGDAM will remain operationally with the FBI at this time. The FBI also feels strongly that the 

business activities of the SWGDAM Committees are critical for the operation of CODIS and plans to 

continue managing the SWGDAM Committees to ensure not only that the QAS are revised in an efficient 

manner, but also that the National DNA Index System (NDIS) Procedures are timely and appropriate for the 

current or emerging technologies which are used by NDIS-participating laboratories nationwide. Emerging 

forensic technologies such as Rapid-DNA testing and Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) are quickly 

becoming a reality, so the FBI must also ensure through SWGDAM that topics such as nomenclature and 

genetic privacy can be made fully compatible with the CODIS system. Once the OSAC has disseminated 

guidance for the review and approval of standards and guidelines through its Forensic Science Code of 

Practice, draft SWGDAM guideline documents will be submitted for review and comment to the OSAC 

administration and all approved SWGDAM guidelines will be provided to the OSAC for inclusion in its 

Registry of Approved Standards or Guidelines, as appropriate. Additionally, once the OSAC business 

structure has been formally memorialized, SWGDAM will review its current business process for drafting and 

approving guidelines which are captured in its Bylaws, and, to the extent possible, incorporate all elements 

of the review process designated for the OSACs. This includes a public review period for all guidelines and 

proposed changes to the QAS which SWGDAM has now implemented and formally incorporated into its 

Bylaws.

Several of the members of the Biology/DNA SAC (Table 5) and the DNA Analysis 1 and DNA 

Analysis 2 subcommittees (Table 6) are also regular participants in SWGDAM – so there will 

likely be opportunities for collaboration and interaction between SWGDAM and the OSAC DNA 

efforts. 

Conclusions

While NCFS is a DOJ advisory group to enact policies that directly impact the FBI, DEA, and 

ATF laboratories, the influence of its recommendations has the potential to be felt more widely.

NIST has the primary responsibility to make OSAC an on-going community effort to improve 

forensic science practices through developing documentary standards that can be used by 

accreditation bodies in future audits of forensic science laboratories. Going forward both the

NCFS and OSAC have important roles that represent progress on the path to better quality 

forensic science in the United States.
J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 10 of 18

Acknowledgments

Development of the National Commission on Forensic Science and the Organization of Scientific Area 

Committees has involved numerous people. In addition, input and review of the information in this article 

were provided by many colleagues at NIST and DOJ. In particular, I would like to thank Nelson Santos, 

Brette Steele, and Robin Jones from DOJ and Jennifer Huergo, John Paul Jones, Mark Stolorow, Susan 

Ballou, Rich Cavanagh, Karen Reczek, Gordon Gillerman, Barbara Guttman, Melissa Taylor, Shannan 

Williams, Pat Gallagher, and Willie May from NIST. 

Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology. 

References

DOJ (2013a). DOJ announcement of National Commission on Forensic Science at the AAFS 2013 meeting.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/acting-assistant-attorney-general-office-legal-policy-elana-tyrangiel-speaksamerican. 

DOJ (2013b). Federal Register: Notice of Establishment of the National Commission on Forensic Science and 

Solicitation of Applications for Commission Membership. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/22/2013-

04140/notice-of-establishment-of-the-national-commission-on-forensic-science-and-solicitation-of

Drahl, C., & Widener, A. (2014). Forcing change in forensic science. Chemical & Engineering News, 92(19): 10-15. 

Available at http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/i19/Forcing-Change-Forensic-Science.html. 

FACA (2014). Federal Advisory Committee Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Advisory_Committee_Act and 

http://www.gsa.gov/faca; see also http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title5/html/USCODE-2010-title5-appfederalad.htm and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05a/usc_sup_05_5_10_sq1.html.

Gialamas, D.M. (2013). The changing face of forensic science: what police chiefs need to know about national 

forensic science initiatives, The Police Chief, 80 (September 2013): 26-29. Available at 

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=3064&issue_id=92013. 

Jones, J.P. (2014). NIST Launches the Organization of Scientific Area Committees. Evidence Technology Magazine. 

(September-October 2014 issue). Available at 

http://www.evidencemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1761. 

Mayo, K. (2014). Meeting on the path forward. Evidence Technology Magazine (March-April 2014 issue). Available at

http://www.evidencemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1586&Itemid=49.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward.

National Academies Press: Washington, DC.

National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) home page: http://www.justice.gov/ncfs.

NCFS Charter (2013): http://www.facadatabase.gov/download.aspx?fn=Charters/83353_Charter_(2013-05-03-10-42-

45).pdf

NIST Information Page on the NCFS: http://www.nist.gov/forensics/ncfs.cfm. 

NIST Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) home page: http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac/index.cfm.

NIST/DOJ press release (15 February 2013). Department of Justice and National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Announce Launch of National Commission on Forensic Science. Available at 
J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 11 of 18

http://www.nist.gov/oles/doj-nist-forensic-science021513.cfm or http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-andnational-institute-standards-and-technology-announce-launch-national. 

NIST/DOJ press release (10 January 2014). U.S. Departments of Justice and Commerce Name Experts to First-ever 

National Commission on Forensic Science. Available at http://www.nist.gov/forensics/forensic-science-commission011014.cfm or http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-departments-justice-and-commerce-name-experts-first-ever-nationalcommission-forensic.

NIST press release (11 April 2014). Calling Forensic Scientists: Apply Now to Join the NIST Organization of Scientific 

Area Committees. Available at http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osacapplication_news.cfm. 

NIST press release (22 April 2014). NIST Seeks Applicants to Join Forensic Science Committees. Available at 

http://www.nist.gov/director/forensic-042214.cfm. 

NIST press release (14 May 2014). Forensic Committee Application Closes for 2014; Candidates May Apply for 

2015. Available at http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac-051414.cfm. 

NIST press release (26 June 2014). NIST Names Members to First Forensic Science Standards Board. Available at 

http://www.nist.gov/forensics/first-forensic-science-standards-board-062614.cfm. 

NIST press release (16 July 2014). NIST Names Members of Forensic Science Resource Committees. Available at 

http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac-rc.cfm. 

NIST press release (3 September 2014). Forensic Science Standards Effort Takes Shape as NIST Appoints Scientific 

Area Committees Members. Available at http://www.nist.gov/forensics/sac-members-announcement.cfm. 

NIST press release (8 September 2014). New Forensic Subcommittee on Digital Evidence Added to Organization of 

Scientific Area Committees. Available at http://www.nist.gov/forensics/forensics-090814.cfm. 

NIST press release (29 October 2014). 402 Members Named to Forensic Science Standards Organization. Available

at http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac_102914.cfm.

Notice of Inquiry (2013). Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry: Possible Models for the Administration and 

Support of Discipline-Specific Guidance Groups for Forensic Science (337 page, 8 MB pdf document, posted 4 

February 2014). Available at http://www.nist.gov/forensics/upload/commentspdf-020714-small-3-2.pdf. 

OSAC Developments Timeline (2014): http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac.cfm

OSAC Frequency Asked Questions (FAQs) (2014): http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac/faq.cfm

OSAC Roles and Responsibilities (2014): http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osacroles.cfm

OSAC Webcast at public meeting held at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting in Seattle, 

Washington (18 February 2014): http://www.nist.gov/forensics/aafswebcast.cfm; slide presentation given: 

http://www.nist.gov/forensics/upload/osac-021814.pdf. 

OSTP National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Forensic Science (SoFS) May 2014

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/strengthening_the_forensic_sciences_may_-

_2014.pdf
J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 12 of 18

Table 1. Summary of first four NCFS meetings. Meeting summaries are available at 

http://www.justice.gov/ncfs/meetings and links to webcasts for meetings 2, 3, and 4 are available at 

http://www.nist.gov/forensics/ncfs.cfm. 

# Dates Topics (Speakers)

1 February 3-4, 2014

 Welcoming remarks (James Cole, Patrick Gallagher, John Holdren)

 Reflections on the NAS 2009 report (Judge Harry Edwards)

 Census of Publicly Funded Crime Laboratories (Matt DuRose)

 Background presentations on accreditation and certification (Patricia 

Manzolillo), proficiency testing (Dean Gialamas), research (Jeff 

Salyards), and documentary standards (Gerry LaPorte)

 Announcement of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (Mark 

Stolorow)

 Discussion and prioritization of Commission agenda and establishment 

of initial subcommittees

2

May 12-13, 2014

(webcast)

 Issues of human factors and cognitive bias (Deborah Boehm-Davis, 

John Collins, Michael Risinger, David Kaye)

 Ethics (Jamie Upshaw Downs, Rob Lesnevich)

 OSAC update (Mark Stolorow, Willie May)

 Subcommittee reports and discussion

3

August 26-27, 2014

(webcast)

 Human factors and cognitive bias solutions (Itiel Dror, Bill Thompson)

 Latent print automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS) 

interoperability (Austin Hicklin, Melissa Gische, Lauren Reed, David 

Russell)

 Accreditation experiences (Beth Mishalanie, Roger Klein, Ross Randlett)

 Lessons learned from the United Kingdom (Andrew Rennison)

 Subcommittee reports and discussion

 Directive recommendation for the Bureau of Justice Statistics to develop 

a nationally representative survey to determine capabilities of law 

enforcement forensic science service providers

 Announcement by co-chairs to include digital evidence in Commission 

and OSAC activities

4

October 28-29, 2014

(webcast)

 Bureau of Justice Statistics proposal on the survey of law enforcement 

forensic science service providers (Erica Smith, Matt DuRose)

 Update on OSAC and NIST Center of Excellence plans (Mark Stolorow)

 Review of NAS report on eyewitness identification (Judge Rakoff, 

Thomas Albright)

 Review of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy report 

on latent fingerprint interoperability (Tania Simoncelli, Laura Gerhardt)

 Subcommittee reports and discussion

 Review of initial draft subcommittee work products
J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 13 of 18

Table 2. National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) membership by categories. The numbers 

indicate the 31 voting members with ex-officio Commissioners having an asterisk next to their name. For 

Commissioner biographies, see http://www.justice.gov/ncfs/members. The color coding provided below is 

only meant to help separate classification groups and has no specific meaning. 

Voting 

Members

Leadership

James Cole (DOJ Co-Chair) Deputy Attorney General - U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

Willie May (NIST Co-Chair) Acting Director - National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

1 Nelson Santos (DOJ Vice-Chair) Deputy Assistant Administrator - Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Laboratory

2 John Butler (NIST Vice-Chair) Special Assistant to the Director for Forensic Science - NIST

Brette Steele (DFO) Senior Advisor on Forensic Science and Senior Counsel within the Office of the DAG

Robin Jones (Program Manager) Contractor to U.S. Department of Justice

Department of Justice

3 Greg Czarnopys Deputy Assistant Director - Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Lab

4 John Kacavas Prosecuting Attorney (U.S. Attorney - District of New Hampshire)

Gerry LaPorte* Director - Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences, National Institute of Justice (NIJ)

5 Marc LeBeau Senior Forensic Scientist - Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Laboratory

Kathryn Turman* Assistant Director - FBI's Office of Victim Assistance

Practitioners

6 Cecelia Crouse Laboratory Director - Palm Beach County (Florida) Sheriff's Office Crime Laboratory

7 Dean Gialamas Assistant Division Director - Los Angeles County (California) Sheriff's Department

8 Linda Jackson Laboratory Director - Virginia Department of Forensic Science

Patricia Manzolillo* Laboratory Director - United States Postal Inspection Service

9 Michael (Jeff) Salyards Executive Director - Defense Forensic Science Center, Department of Defense (DoD)

10 Ryant Washington Sheriff - Fluvanna County (Virginia) Sheriff's Office

11 Phil Pulaski Former Chief of Detectives (retired) - New York City Police Department

Medical Examiner/Coroner

12 Vince Di Maio Consultant in forensic pathology; Medical Examiner (retired) - Bexar County (San Antonio), Texas 

13 John Fudenberg Assistant Coroner - Clark County (Las Vegas), Nevada Office of the Coroner/Medical Examiner

Legal Community and Officers of the Court

14 Ted Hunt Prosecuting Attorney (Kansas City, Missouri)

15 Matt Redle Prosecuting Attorney (Sheridan County, Wyoming)

16 Pam King Defense Attorney (State of Minnesota Public Defender)

17 Julia Leighton Defense Attorney (Washington DC Public Defender Service)

18 Judge Barbara Hervey Judge (Texas State Court of Criminal Appeals)

19 Judge Bridget Mary McCormack Judge (Michigan State Supreme Court)

Judge Jed Rakoff* Judge (Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York)

Academic and/or Researchers

20 Suzanne Bell Professor of Chemistry (West Virginia University)

21 Frederick Bieber Professor of Pathology (Harvard Medical School)

22 Thomas Cech Professor of Biochemistry (University of Colorado-Boulder)

23 M. Bonner Denton Professor of Chemistry and Geosciences (University of Arizona)

24 Andrea Ferreira-Gonzalez Professor of Pathology (Virginia Commonwealth University)

25 Stephen Fienberg Professor of Statistics and Social Science (Carnegie Mellon University)

26 S. James (Jim) Gates, Jr. Professor of Physics (University of Maryland)

27 Troy Duster Professor of Sociology (University of California-Berkeley)

28 Jules Epstein Professor of Law (Widener University School of Law)

29 Paul Giannelli Professor of Law (Case Western Reserve School of Law)

Marilyn Huestis* Chief of Chemistry and Drug Metabolism - National Institute of Drug Abuse, NIH

Mark Weiss* Director of the Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences Division - National Science Foundation

Additional Stakeholders

David Honey* Assistant Deputy Director - National Intelligence for Science and Technology

30 Susan Howley Director of Public Policy - National Center for Victims of Crime (Advocate for Victim's Rights)

31 Peter Neufeld Defense Attorney and Co-Founder of the Innocence Project (Advocate for Defendant's Rights)

Frances Schrotter* Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer - American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 14 of 18

Table 3. NCFS initial subcommittees, leadership, and issues under consideration

Subcommittee Co-chairs Issues Under Consideration

1

Accreditation and 

Proficiency Testing

Linda Jackson 

Patricia Manzolillo

 Universal accreditation of all forensic science 

service providers

 Issues of proficiency testing and terminology

 Critical steps or pathways to achieve 

accreditation

2 Interim Solutions Dean Gialamas

Peter Neufeld

 Core definitions (e.g., forensic science and 

forensic science service providers)

 National code of ethics and its enforcement

 AFIS interoperability 

 Root cause analysis

 Transparency of quality records

3

Medicolegal Death 

Investigation (MDI)

Vince Di Maio

John Fudenberg

 Accreditation of all MDI offices 

 Certification of all MDI staff

 Funding strategies

 Networking MDI offices

 Increasing the supply of forensic pathologists

4

Reporting and 

Testimony

Judge Rakoff

Matt Redle

 Presentation of expert testimony

 Pretrial discovery in forensic evidence cases

 Report content and uniform terminology

 Use and expression of probabilistic statements

 Problematic or misleading terms

5

Scientific Inquiry 

and Research

Suzanne Bell

Jeff Salyards

 Criteria for quality forensic scientific literature

 Educational programs in forensic science

 Transition of research into laboratory practice

 Methods for measuring impact of research

6

Training on 

Science and Law

Judge Hervey

Jim Gates

 Uniform programs for educating the legal 

community on forensic science (through a 

science-based common core curriculum)

 Individualized training for judges

 Uniform programs for educating forensic 

scientists on legal issues

 Delivery methods for developed curricula

7 Human Factors Judge McCormack

Troy Duster

 Just getting started and have not met as a full 

subcommittee as of early November 2014
J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 15 of 18

Table 4. Timeline of activities leading to OSAC launch

Date Event

Aug 2010

Standards, Practices, and Protocols Interagency Working Group (SPPIWG) of the White House National Science 

and Technology Council Subcommittee on Forensic Science (SoFS) proposes that a Scientific Working Group 

Program Management Office (SWG PMO) be established and run by the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) in order to coordinate the activities of individual SWGs

Feb 2013

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and NIST announce plans to form the National Commission on Forensic 

Science (NCFS), as a federal advisory group to DOJ, and to establish scientific guidance groups that will be 

administered by NIST; one of the duties in the NCFS charter is “to consider the recommendations of the National 

Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Forensic Science”

June 2013 NIST meets with the chairs of current Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) to discuss potential structures for an 

organization to house the guidance groups

Sept 2013 to 

Nov 2013

NIST gathers information from a public Notice of Inquiry regarding aspects of guidance groups; 82 responses are 

received including input from the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and Australia

Dec 2013 NIST planning team develops a proposed infrastructure for the guidance groups

Jan 2014 Discussions are held between NIST planning team and forensic professional organizations including AAFS, 

AFTE, IAI, NAME, and SOFT

Feb 2014 At the first NCFS meeting, which is held in Washington, DC, NIST announces a proposed structure for the 

scientific guidance groups called the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC)

Feb 2014 NIST planning team met with representatives of forensic science accreditation bodies

Feb 2014 At the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) meeting in Seattle (and via webcast), NIST presenters 

provide a detailed description of the planned OSAC structure 

Mar 2014 to 

Nov 2014

Outreach presentations sharing planned OSAC structure are given at numerous scientific and professional 

meetings including: Bode West, FIU Forensic Symposium, ASCLD Symposium, CAC, AFTE, MAAFS, Bode East, 

Green Mountain DNA Conference, IAI, ANZFSS, NAME, SAFS, ISHI, MAFS, IAFS, SWAFS, SOFT, NWAFS, and 

NEAFS

April & May 

2014 Initial 30-day application period results in over 1300 applicants to positions within OSAC

June 2014 NIST planning team meets with representatives of various Standards Development Organizations (SDOs)

June 2014 Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB) membership appointed

July 2014 Legal Resource Committee (LRC), Quality Infrastructure Committee (QIC), and Human Factors Committee (HFC) 

membership appointed

Aug 2014 First FSSB in-person meeting occurs

Sept 2014 Membership appointed for five Scientific Area Committees (SACs)

Sept 2014 Applications received for digital evidence subcommittee

Oct 2014 Membership appointed for 23 OSAC subcommittees

Dec 2014 Membership appointed for digital evidence subcommittee

Jan 2015 First in-person subcommittee meetings held

Feb 2015 First public SAC meetings held
J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 16 of 18

Table 5. OSAC initial membership for SAC Biology/DNA committee and Wildlife Forensics

subcommittee. Recent participants in SWGDAM activities are highlighted in yellow. 

Scientific Area Committee for Biology/DNA

Name Agency OSAC Role or Classification

1 George Herrin, Jr., Ph.D. Georgia Bureau of Investigation-Division of Forensic Sciences SAC Biology/DNA Chair

2 Kimberly Murga Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department DNA Analysis 1 Sub Chair

3 Robyn Ragsdale, Ph.D. Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA Analysis 2 Sub Chair

4 Katherine Moore U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service Wildlife Sub Chair

5 Angelo Della Manna Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences State Practitioner

6 Deedra Hawk Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wildlife Forensic & Fish Health Laboratory State Practitioner

7 John Butler, Ph.D. National Institute of Standards and Technology Researcher

8 Thomas Callaghan, Ph.D. Federal Bureau of Investigation Researcher/Federal Practitioner

9 Robin Cotton, Ph.D. Boston University School of Medicine Biomedical Forensic Sciences Program Researcher

10 Phillip Danielson, Ph.D. University of Denver Researcher

11 Antonio Possolo, Ph.D. National Institute of Standards and Technology Statistician

12 Bruce Weir, Ph.D. University of Washington Statistician

Wildlife Forensics Subcommittee

Name Agency OSAC Role or Classification

1 Katherine Moore NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service Wildlife Sub Chair

2 Barry Baker U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Fish & Wildlife Forensics Laboratory Federal Practitioner

3 Mary Burnham-Curtis, Ph.D. US. Dept. of Interior - US Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement Federal Practitioner

4 Benjamin Paul (Trey) Knott, III NOAA/Northwest Fisheries Science Center/Forensics laboratory Federal Practitioner

5 Pepper Trail, Ph.D. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service / National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory Federal Practitioner

6 Tasha Bauman Wyoming Game & Fish Wildlife Forensic and Fish Health Laboratory State Practitioner

7 Kimberly Frazier Wyoming Game and Fish Department State Practitioner

8 Christina Lindquist UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory Forensic unit (VGL-Forensics) Academic/Researcher

9 Steven Hoofer, Ph.D. Sedgwick County (Kansas) Regional Forensic Science Center Local Practitioner

10 Jason Byrd, Ph.D. University of Florida Academic/Researcher

11 David Foran, Ph.D. Michigan State University Academic/Researcher

12 Jenny Giles, Ph.D. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Forensic Unit/

UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory Forensic Unit Researcher

13 R. Christopher O’Brien, Ph.D. University of New Haven (Connecticut) Academic/Researcher

14 Lee-Ann Collins Hayek, Ph.D. Smithsonian Institution Statistician
J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 17 of 18

Table 6. OSAC initial membership for DNA1 and DNA2 subcommittees. Recent participants in 

SWGDAM activities are highlighted in yellow.

DNA Analysis 1 Subcommittee

Name Agency OSAC Role or Classification

1 Kimberly Murga Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department DNA Analysis 1 Sub Chair

2 Debra Glidewell Defense Forensic Science Center – USACIL Federal Practitioner

3 Robert Sean Oliver Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL) Federal Practitioner

4 Steven Weitz Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Laboratory Federal Practitioner

5 Caroline Zervos FBI Laboratory Federal Practitioner

6 Jason Befus, Ph.D. Maryland State Police-Forensic Sciences Division State Practitioner

7 Kathleen Mayntz-Press Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory State Practitioner

8 Margaret Sanger, Ph.D. Kentucky State Police Forensic Laboratory State Practitioner

9 Taylor Scott III, Ph.D. Illinois State Police State Practitioner

10 Kristine Kadash, Ph.D. Jefferson County (Colorado) Regional Crime Laboratory Local Practitioner

11 Eugene Lien NYC Office of Chief Medical Examiner, Department of Forensic Biology Local Practitioner

12 Stacy McDonald, Ph.D. Dallas County Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences Local Practitioner

13 Amy McGuckian Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Local Practitioner

14 Amy Jeanguenat Bode Technology Group Private Practitioner

15 Elisa Wurmbach, Ph.D. NYC Office of Chief Medical Examiner, Department of Forensic Biology Researcher/Local Practitioner

16 Eric Buel, Ph.D. Self-employed consultant (retired director of Vermont Forensic Lab) Consultant/Researcher

17 Susan Greenspoon, Ph.D. Virginia Department of Forensic Science Researcher/State Practitioner

18 Bruce McCord, Ph.D. Florida International University Academic/Researcher

19 Daniele Podini, Ph.D. George Washington University Academic/Researcher

20 Peter Vallone, Ph.D. NIST Applied Genetics Group Researcher

DNA Analysis 2 Subcommittee

Name Agency OSAC Role or Classification

1 Robyn Ragsdale, Ph.D. Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA Analysis 2 Sub Chair

2 Todd Bille Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Laboratory Federal Practitioner

3 Susannah Kehl FBI Laboratory Federal Practitioner

4 Timothy McMahon, Ph.D. Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory Federal Practitioner

5 Joel Sutton Defense Forensic Science Center – USACIL Federal Practitioner

6 Rebekah Kay Utah Bureau of Forensic Services State Practitioner

7 Jeff Nye Michigan Department of State Police Forensic Science Division State Practitioner

8 Margaret (Peg) Schwartz, Ph.D. Vermont Forensic Laboratory State Practitioner

9 Carl Sobieralski Indiana State Police Laboratory State Practitioner

10 Lisa Marie Brewer Glendale (California) Police Department Local Practitioner

11 Kathleen Corrado, Ph.D. Onondaga County (New York) Center for Forensic Sciences Local Practitioner

12 Bill Gartside San Bernardino County (California) Sheriff’s Department Local Practitioner

13 Shawn Montpetit San Diego Police Department Crime Laboratory Local Practitioner

14 Mechthild Prinz, Ph.D. John Jay College of Criminal Justice Academic/Researcher

15 Michael Coble, Ph.D. NIST Applied Genetics Group Researcher

16 Catherine Grgicak, Ph.D. Boston University School of Medicine Academic/Researcher

17 Charlotte Word, Ph.D. Self Employed as a Private Consultant Consultant/Researcher

18 Christian Westring, Ph.D. NMS Labs Private Practitioner/Researcher

19 Julie French GE Healthcare Human Identity Division Technology Partner

20 Sandy Zabell, Ph.D. Northwestern University Statistician
J.M. Butler, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification (2014)

http://www.promega.com/products/pm/genetic-identity/ishi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-index-home/

Page 18 of 18

Figure 1. Organizational structure of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) as of 

November 2014.

Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC)

Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

SAC

Biology/DNA

SAC

Physics/Pattern

SAC 

Chemistry/ 

Instrumental Analysis

SAC

Digital/Multimedia

SAC

Crime Scene/ 

Death Investigation

Quality Infrastructure 

Committee (QIC)

Legal Resource 

Committee (LRC)

Human Factors 

Committee (HFC)

SAC = Scientific Area Committee

Sub = Subcommittee

Firearms & Toolmarks 

Sub 

Questioned Documents 

Sub

Friction Ridge Sub

Blood Stain Pattern 

Analysis Sub

Footwear 

& Tire Tread Sub

DNA Analysis Sub1

Wildlife Forensics Sub

DNA Analysis Sub2 Imaging Technologies Sub

Facial Identification Sub

Speaker Recognition Sub 

Controlled Substances Sub

Fire Debris and Explosives 

Sub (lab)

Materials (Trace) Sub

Toxicology Sub

Geological Materials Sub

Gunshot Residue Sub

Anthropology Sub

Disaster Victim 

Identification Sub

Medical/Legal Death 

Investigation Sub

Dogs and Sensors Sub

Fire Scene and 

Explosives Sub 

Odontology Sub

Digital Evidence Sub