Public Comments on NIST Notice of 

Inquiry:

Possible Models for the 

Administration and 

Support of DisciplineSpecific Guidance Groups 

for Forensic Science

NOI published Sept. 27, 2013

in U.S. Federal Register

Available online at 

https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-23617

Comments received through Nov. 26, 2013
Submitter Name Organization Page

Baker, David W. Collective Group 4 

Beaty, Randall NSC - ADID 10

Bieber, Frederick R. Self 11

Birdwell, Suzanne Lowe IAI Forensic Art Subcommittee 14

Bishop, Brett Self 17

Black, Sue Self 21

Burkes, Ted Self 22

Chaski, Carole Self 28

Coffman, David Self 50

Cox, Jerry NACDL 54

Crouse, Cecelia A. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office Laboratory 60

Cushman, Barry American Polygraph Association 65

Darnell, James SWGDE/SWGIT/FISWG 67

Degaetano, Doug SWGGSR 83

deLone, Madeline Innocence Project 90

Durina, Marie Self 107

Eldridge, Heidi Self 114

Enslow, Sandra Forensic Artists 118

Fudenberg, John SWGMDI Board 122

Furton, Ken SWGDOG 124

Gaennslen, R.E. Self 131

Gagliardi, Pete Self 132

Gardner, Mark Self 134

Gische, Melissa SWGFAST 135

Glassburg, Garth Self 144

Griffin, Helen Self 145

Griffin, Tom Self 147

Guice, Erica Self 150

Halsing, Eric CAC<BoD 151

Hammer, Lesley IAI 154

Henry, Erin Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigations – 

Laboratory Staff

157

Henry, Jay ASCLD 160

Hernandez, Laura Self 162

Hilderbrand, Dwane Forensic ITC 164

Horton, Robert MorphoTrak 167

Inlow, Vici Self 172

Jacobs, Jeff ASCP 173

Jimenez, Malena Self 174

Johnson, Matt SWGTREAD 175

Johnson, D. Pat Self 183

Jones, Doug Self 185

Kiebuzinski, George Noblis 186

Krug, Christopher AFQAM 190

Kusluski, Mike Self 192

LeBeau, Marc Self 194

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 2 of 337
Lentini, John Self 197

Lothridge, Kevin NFSTC 198

Marone, Pete CFSO 199

Marr, Ken Self 201

McClelland, Chuck Self 205

Medler, Michael Self 206

Melton, Terry Self 207

Montgomery, Madeline SWGTOX Executive Committee 209

Murga, Kimberly Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 220

Nakasone, Hirotaka SWGSPEAKER 222

Newman, Jonathan Centre of Forensic Sciences 225

Nixon, John Self 228

Oliver, Ronald Self 262

Oulton, Scott SWGDRUG 264

Peterson, Brian Self 271

Pollitt, Mark Self 272

Ray, Eric Self 274

Sandercock, Mark Self 276

Singley, LeeAnn Self 281 

Smith, Andy Self 284 

Souza, Paul Self 286 

Stam, Marianne Self 287 

Stoiloff, Stephanie Miami- Dade Police Department Forensic 

Services Bureau

289

Sutton, Joel USACIL- DNA Casework Branch 294 

Szymanski, Andrew Self 296 

Tewes, Warren Self 301 

Thomas, Lindsey NAME 304 

Triplett, Michele Self 307 

Tytell, Peter Self 308

Vajdos, Scott Self 316

Valdez, Jennifer Self 324 

Vargas, Rigo Self 325 

Walsh, Simon Australian Federal Police 332 

Weedn, Victor Self 333 

Wilcox, Alicia Self 334 

Wright, Ronald K. Self 337 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 3 of 337
TO: National Institute of Standards and Technology 

c/o Susan Ballou 

100 Bureau Drive 

Mailstop 8102 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

November 18, 2013 

FROM: David W. Baker, MFS 

Fellow, American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) 

7515 Colshire Drive, MS T240 

McLean, VA 22102 

Subject: Notice of inquiry - Possible Models for the Administration and Support of Discipline-Specific 

Guidance Groups for Forensic Science 

MS Ballou, 

I am sending this letter in response to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) request 

for input from interested parties to provide their perspectives on the appropriate model for NIST 

administration and support of discipline-specific Guidance Groups to be established pursuant to the 

Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Justice and NIST. The views and opinions 

expressed in this letter do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the AAFS, The MITRE 

Corporation, or any agency of the U.S. government. 

While you may know my background, for the record, I would like to state that I have been involved in the 

forensic sciences for over 20 years. I have previously served as a forensic specialist as a US Federal 

Special Agent, and served as an agency representative on the DoD Forensic Science Advisory Board. 

I’ve been affiliated with the AAFS since 1994, and am a fellow. I am currently serving as a Director, 

representing the Digital and Multimedia Sciences Section. I’ve been actively involved specifically in 

digital forensics issues for over 15 years. I’ve served in numerous capacities in the digital forensics 

community, including the organizing committee for the Digital Forensics Research Workshop (DFRWS) 

and as a member of the external advisory board for the Center for Education and Research in Information 

Assurance and Security (CERIAS). I am also a member of both High Technology Crime Investigation 

Association and High Technology Crime Consortium. I serve on the editorial board for the Journal of 

Digital Investigation. I currently work as a Cyber Security Engineer within MITRE’s Center for National 

Security, a Federally Funded Research and Development Center for the Department of Defense. 

I solicited input from my colleagues within the digital forensics community concerning the subject 

request. Based on my review of the request, my personal knowledge, and the input I received, I 

respectfully submit the following responses to the questions posed in NIST’s request for input, for your 

consideration. 

1.) Given the scope and principles of the Guidance Groups outlined here, what are structural models that 

could best support the Guidance Groups, taking into account the technical, policy, legal, and operational 

aspects of forensic science? 

For the guidance groups to be successful there should be a leadership body or group in order to better 

standardize, de-conflict and integrate the various groups, and should probably be operated or managed by 

a not-for-profit organization. There should be clear roles and responsibilities, and oversight functions, 

which will require some form of executive leadership. This could be accomplished with an executive 

board/committee formed by the chairs/leads of the various groups, or an executive function with 

representation from the groups. This executive board/committee can direct/guide the operation/function 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 4 of 337
Subject: Notice of inquiry - Possible Models for the Administration and Support of Discipline-Specific 

Guidance Groups for Forensic Science 

2 

of the groups and create ad-hoc committees to address issues that affect multiple groups. Examples of 

these committees might be legal/judicial, reporting or other types of issues that would likely be crosscutting. Each group would also require some level of administrative support for the group to function and 

successfully meet the objectives. This support includes administrative and secretarial support, 

telecommunications support (to include web-hosting, email, phone conferencing) and some travel related 

support for regular meetings. While some group business may be conducive to email/teleconferencing, 

other business may require in-person discussions. The leadership body should oversee/manage funding to 

insure all groups are adequately resourced. Some groups may have more requirements than others, 

particularly in emerging areas which might require more frequent activity than some established 

disciplines. 

2) What elements or models would facilitate the sharing of best practices and uniform practices across the

Guidance Groups? 

This was partially mentioned in the prior answer. There should be an executive board/committee serving 

an oversight function that establishes common requirements for the groups. There should be 

processes/controls in place to insure that efforts of the groups do not conflict with each other. The groups 

should comply with some standardized way of producing their output/products. The output of the groups 

should be publicly available. 

3) Are there public policies or private sector initiatives in other countries that have successfully

strengthened the nation's use of forensic science by supporting the development and propagation of 

forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of forensic science research and 

measurement standards, and verifying the scientific basis exists for each discipline? If so, what are they? 

The European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) is a good example of an international 

effort to provide some consensus for forensic science organizations with regard to standards, information 

exchanges, proficiency testing, and oversight. It has several working groups including Digital Imaging, 

Forensic Information Technology, and Forensic Speech and Audio Analysis. There is also the Audio 

Engineering Society, with its Technical Committee on Audio Forensics. 

4) What are the elements which make existing forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) successful?

Are there examples of best practices in specific SWGs that ought to be replicated in Guidance Groups? If 

so, what are they? 

The elements that are essential are: qualified practitioner participation & leadership (see answer to 

question 13 for stakeholders who should be included); clearly articulated voting process to deter/prevent 

undue influence; basic level of funding support; regular meetings; long-range planning; and transparency. 

Some best practices or good examples are the SWGDE, SWGIT, and FISWG. They have fairly detailed 

document repositories:

- SWGIT: https://www.swgit.org/documents/Current%20Documents 

- SWGDE: https://www.swgde.org/documents/Current%20Documents 

- FISWG: https://www.fiswg.org/document/viewDocuments 

5) Would partnership with a standards development organization (SDO) in which the standard is issued

by the SDO present any obstacle for participation by a broad range of forensics science stakeholders in 

the development of a standard? If so, why? 

The primary obstacle for some agencies engaged in forensic science is a lack of funding to support 

membership fees/dues and travel to meetings when required. If the groups are financially supported to be 

members of these organizations, then at least participation would be possible. Another obstacle is that all 

standards are not freely available to the forensic community or individual practitioners, which could 

create a financial burden on individual practitioners or smaller practitioner organizations. In fact, some 

law enforcement agencies are not fully aware of the standards in forensic science or who would even 

create such standards. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 5 of 337
Subject: Notice of inquiry - Possible Models for the Administration and Support of Discipline-Specific 

Guidance Groups for Forensic Science 

3 

6) Would partnership with an SDO in which the standard is issued by the SDO present any obstacle to

broad adoption of a standard? If so, why? 

This was partially answered in the previous question. Not all practitioners or organizations who work in a 

given forensic field are able or willing to pay for standards. Some organizations will only 

purchase/comply with standards if necessary to achieve certifications/accreditations. Without some 

funding behind it, there probably will not be broad adoption of standards. It might also be problematic 

for some government agencies or private organizations to adopt a standard for which their examiners do 

not qualify. For example, if a standard states that an examiner in a particular field must have a Bachelor 

of Science degree, and an agency/organization has examiners who do not meet this criteria, then this may 

present an obstacle to their adoption of the standard. Also, SDO are not immune to internal strife by 

various factions within an SDO; these could be groups of individuals or politically related factions (as in 

some international bodies). Finally, selecting one SDO over another may create issues, as some 

organizations may already comply with one standards organization and not wish to change, preferring one 

over another. A later question has more detailed information about group participation in standards 

organizations. 

7) Would a fee-based membership model run through a not-for-profit organization (similar to the National

Conference of Weights and Measures) present a significant obstacle for participation? 

This could be an issue. Some individuals or organizations may be unable to pay the dues or fees, or may 

have some other constraint precluding such fees. The groups should include the best subject matter 

experts in the specific discipline. A fee-based membership will probably result in the exclusion of 

members which could result in a biased group. This effort should likely be an open and representative 

system without financial requirements. 

8) If the Guidance Groups followed a fee-based membership model, are there appropriately-tiered

systems for fees that would prevent ''pricing out'' organizations, including individuals? 

It's not clear that there are. Many organizations/individuals participating in the current SWG have very 

limited budgets, and the idea of requiring them to pay-to-play would potentially cut them out of the 

process. While federal labs/agencies are most visible, there are far more state, local, and private 

practitioners than there are federal. The system should not be set up so that well-funded agencies are the 

principal participants, rather it should be open and accessible to federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies, private practitioners, academia and industry for the groups to be successful. If there is a 

reasonable tiered system that can accommodate those with minimal (or in some cases no) budgets for 

such participation, then it's a consideration. 

9) Other than a privatized model, are there other means to maintain a governance or coordinating body in

the long term? If possible, please give examples of existing structures and their positive and negative 

attributes. 

There are various groups that manage some disciplines. Consider the various bar associations for the 

legal profession. However, in this situation, there are already existing groups performing much of the 

roles/functions. The SWGs have been successful in helping shape and guide the areas, and have been 

active for many years. The negatives to the existing system are that the funding has been almost 

exclusively from law enforcement and those budgets are now very stretched resulting in loss of support. 

Also, some SWG are not transparent and have restricted membership. The positives are that they have 

been very active and some have been more transparent and open to broader membership. SWGDE is an 

example of a much more transparent group. 

10) Given that the Guidance Groups cannot mandate the adoption of standards, what can they do to best

leverage their position and encourage adoption? To what extent does membership and transparency 

impact possible adoption of guidance at the state and local level? 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 6 of 337
Subject: Notice of inquiry - Possible Models for the Administration and Support of Discipline-Specific 

Guidance Groups for Forensic Science 

4 

Referring to the last part of this question, the issues of funding/membership in standards organizations 

and paying for standards have been previously discussed, and these can have a negative effect on both 

transparency and adoption by smaller organizations and practitioners. And unfortunately, the best way to 

encourage adoption of standards is to cater to the lowest common denominator, which may reduce the 

effectiveness of the standard. For example, if a standard/guideline states that an examiner must have a BS 

degree, this may alienate some state and local agencies and prevent their adoption of the 

standard/guideline. If the requirement is changed to something lower than a BS degree, the state and 

local agencies may then adopt the standard/guideline, but it has been watered down in the process. The 

guidance groups must find an appropriate middle ground in areas like these. The guidance groups must 

also find ways to participate in and work with existing standards bodies, such as ANSI, ASTM, and ISO, 

rather than creating an entirely new standards organization. There is not necessarily a need to recreate 

certification and accreditation bodies where those already exist. The NCFS and the guidance groups 

should interface with, participate and inform these existing bodies. The creation of best practices and 

other documents/guidance by the groups can be brought to existing standards organizations, and offered 

as standards, or used to develop/improve or shape certifications/accreditations. The groups must have a 

way to be participants, which is likely a matter of funding as well as policy. The groups must also be 

engaged with other bodies/organizations working in this area (i.e., AAFS, IAI, CFSO, ASCLD, IACP, 

ABA, NACDL). 

11) Are there best practices or models to consider with regard to a structure that would encourage

effective communication with the scientific community to explore research gaps and aid in recognizing 

research priorities? 

Having a more open and inclusive membership in the guidance groups should help by including 

academia, research scientists, and other research oriented subject matter experts. Additionally, the 

aforementioned oversight board/committee, in conjunction with the groups, should help in the 

identification of research gaps. The oversight board/committee could establish a set of criteria that groups 

must answer when beginning new work/efforts. Again, scientific research is driven by an open 

environment where the exchange of differing views and experiences are possible. 

12) How should NIST researchers engage with the Guidance Groups in support of the goal to strengthen

the nation's use of forensic science by supporting the development and propagation of forensic science 

consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of forensic science research and measurement 

standards, and verifying the scientific basis exists for each discipline? 

This question will be answered in two parts: 1) answer only considering guidance groups; and 2) 

discussion of a research institute. 

First part - NIST researchers should reach out to the various professional societies as possible and attend 

their meetings, and proactively interface with the members/attendees to learn where the gaps might be. 

They should also participate in presentations at these meetings in order to generate interest in identifying 

the needs of the particular discipline. NIST researchers could also be non-voting participants in guidance 

groups to provide advice on these issues. The oversight board/committee could also require that groups 

promulgate a document on research gaps and needs, which would be revised and updated on a bi-annual 

basis. They could also have a legal/jurisprudence committee monitor legal cases and rulings in which 

certain forensic examinations or conclusions are being/have been challenged, in order to gauge the current 

state of affairs. 

Second part - The NCFS operates under the DoJ with the principle that "scientifically valid and accurate 

forensic analysis strengthens all aspects of our justice system". The key ingredients needed to accomplish 

this stated principle are 1) data collection and analysis related to actual case scenarios, and 2) 

multidisciplinary scientific research and study. Such activities are outside of existing advisory groups, and 

require a more research oriented model. A recommendation is for NIST to leverage and extend their 

institute model and resources to form a multi-disciplinary forensic research group that supports the 

discipline-specific guidance groups. This would combine the strengths of an institute with the strengths of 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 7 of 337
Subject: Notice of inquiry - Possible Models for the Administration and Support of Discipline-Specific 

Guidance Groups for Forensic Science 

5 

the SWGs. This approach enables the Commission to direct research, practice, and regulation based on 

scientific foundations. This multidisciplinary forensic research group could serve several functions: 

- Develop solid studies and innovation, bridging between forensic disciplines when appropriate

- Publish guidelines and standards of practice that are freely available 

- Fund academic institutions to develop and publish peer reviewed research 

- Fund visiting scientists (including PhD students) into the forensic institute for one or two years to be 

exposed to all forensic disciplines and contribute to a cumulative body of research 

- Coordinate discipline-specific SWGs to obtain actual data and practical perspectives from forensic 

laboratories in support of research and practices 

- Interact with various groups to obtain broader perspective, including standards bodies, professional 

organizations, legal community, and related groups in other countries 

In order to achieve this, here are some recommended steps: 

1) Form a forensic research institute leveraging the existing institute model and resources of NIST.

2) To leverage their strengths and bolster their weaknesses, the role of SWGs could be modified to

provide data from actual case scenarios and collaborate with the NIST forensic research group, including 

researchers from academia, in order to create synergy between real world practice and scientific study. 

3) Fund the forensic research institute to solicit and fund research proposals from academia, with

emphasis on multi-disciplinary approaches. 

13) Who are the stakeholders who should be represented on the Guidance Groups? What steps can NIST

take to ensure appropriately broad representation within the Guidance Groups? What does balanced 

representation mean and how can it be achieved? 

Science flourishes in an open environment where the exchange of differing views and experiences 

improves and enriches the community. So, the guidance groups should also be an open environment to 

the extent possible and practical. The primary stakeholders should be practitioners in the disciplines. 

Whether the practitioner is from a government lab, a private lab or is a private practitioner should not be a 

discriminator. Practitioners can include criminal investigators, private investigators, or corporate security 

investigators. Established members of academia should also have a role as they bring both the 

perspectives of current scientific/engineering knowledge and insight into areas of current and future 

research. The issue of industry participation is more difficult. Industry participation should include those 

performing forensics examinations. Those selling tools, instruments, reagents, or other wares should be 

excluded, as there is significant potential for conflict between their own commercial/economic interests 

and the scientific interests of the profession. Lawyers or jurists, who are not practitioners should probably 

be excluded, although there should be an oversight committee or review function to address legal issues 

which was previously mentioned under question 1 and 12. 

14) What is the best way to engage organizations playing a role in forensic science, standards

development and practice? 

A collaborative body of stakeholders, focused on a quality improvement process for forensic disciplines is 

probably the only way to improve the practice of forensic science at a national level. Open, transparent 

and balanced participation is the key. Having processes/procedures in place to ensure that no one 

organization/agency has more influence than another is necessary, so that all participants have an equal 

voice. 

15) How should interested parties who may not be direct participants in Guidance Groups, engage in a

meaningful way to have an impact on issues in front of the Guidance Groups? 

Having an open and transparent process is essential. The groups should be required to make public 

minutes of meetings, publish draft documents seeking public review and comment with appropriate 

notice, as well as processes for review and incorporation of such comments before final publication. 

There should be an appropriate feedback mechanism as well to receive input from interested parties for 

guidance/documents that are published. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 8 of 337
Subject: Notice of inquiry - Possible Models for the Administration and Support of Discipline-Specific 

Guidance Groups for Forensic Science 

6 

16) To what extent and in what ways must the Federal government, as well as state, local, tribal and

territorial governments be involved at the outset? 

For this to be successful, it must be inclusive, and there should be representation from all levels in the 

guidance groups. In current SWG, there is often some disparity in representation at different levels of 

government for any number of reasons. Participation is voluntary, and it's difficult to mandate specific 

ratios of participants, so that should be avoided. 

17) Should all of the current forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) transition to Guidance Groups?

Unless there is a reason to rename or otherwise recast a SWG, it is prudent to consider transitioning 

groups as they exist, and bring them intact as a guidance group. There will need to be some 

administrative/procedural normalization so that the SWG functions are more standardized. This will 

maintain the institutional knowledge of the various issues encountered and preserve their history and 

relationships within their disciplines. It would also preclude duplication of effort and capitalize on the 

body of work of the SWGs. Some stakeholders for the guidance groups are already in the SWGs. If a 

specific SWG, for whatever reason, does not transition, there should be some process coordinated so that 

there is a way to avoid/resolve potential conflict. 

18) Are there broader groupings of forensic science disciplines that could form the basis of Guidance

Groups than the current group of twenty-one SWGs? If so, what are those groupings? 

As can be seen from organizations like the AAFS, there is a significant multi-disciplinary aspect to 

forensic sciences. While it's possible, it should be carefully considered. While broader groupings of 

disciplines could take place, for guidance/practices/standards to be valuable, they must be specific enough 

within discipline. As mentioned in some prior answers, it's possible that higher level structures for 

oversight could be formed. For example, consider the Digital and Multimedia Sciences areas. There 

could be a higher level committee which provides coordination/oversight for more cross cutting areas for 

the SWGDE, SWGIT, and FISWG, but the individual groups would be maintained for discipline specific 

expertise. 

19) Is there a need for a cross-disciplinary functional approach (i.e. statistical analysis) and how could the

Guidance Groups be structured to best address that need? 

This topic was addressed previously in several questions, where the concept of a form of oversight 

board/committees was discussed. Specifically, statistics is definitely one of the cross cutting areas that 

must be addressed, so that it's done in a cohesive manner. 

20) To what extent do Guidance Groups need to support different forensic science disciplines differently

from one another? 

It is important that there be some cohesion across the forensic sciences disciplines. The previously 

suggested oversight board/committee could define requirements for all guidance groups, and identify the 

minimum tasks each group must conduct/perform. There will be some areas requiring more attention on a 

per discipline basis, however, as there are different levels of maturity for disciplines, some groups may 

require work on areas which may be well documented other disciplines (e.g., training requirements). 

Sincerely, 

David W. Baker 

Fellow, AAFS 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 9 of 337
Structure of Forensic Science Guidance Groups

ADID’s Executive Committee Recommendations 

x Structure of groups: The groups should utilize a committee style format with a Chair or Co-Chair of

each appointed by an appropriate entity such as the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations.

Each practicing group would then be free to populate the various committees, subcommittees, and

other task groups as its members deem appropriate. Chairs of each committee, subcommittee or

task group will be appointed by the guidance group chair/co-chair. Each guidance group will develop

operating rules to govern its practices and allow each member to have a voice in the affairs of the

group.

x Impact of groups: The forensic guidance groups should be structured so that they: evaluate current

practices for scientific and technical appropriateness, validate current methodologies, are free to

explore new and innovative practices, and propose best practices. The overall impact of the

guidance groups should be such that the final work product is a series of recommendations to the

scientific discipline(s) the group represents. The final recommendations must include due

consideration for all levels of jurisdictions whether it be national, state or local.

x Representation: Groups must be populated with actual practitioners in the various disciplines who

will act as subject matter experts (SME). These SMEs must represent all disciplines and

subdisciplines within the particular group. The group must also represent all levels of practitioners

from senior laboratory administrator to the bench level analyst with each having an equal voice in the

final decision making process. As groups are populated, the various forensic discipline organizations

should be tasked with providing a SME to the group to serve as a full voting member. The

professional organizations have a significant presence in the forensic community, have missions to

advance the disciplines, and are generally knowledgeable as to current, pertinent issues and

challenges facing the forensics. For instance, the Forensic Toxicology Group would include at least

one representative from each of the following: the American Academy of Forensic Sciences –

Toxicology Section, the Society of Forensic Toxicologists, the National Safety Council – Alcohol

Drugs and Impairment Division, the International Association for Chemical Testing, the Forensic

Toxicology Council and other similar type organizations.

x Scope: The guidance group will be charged with evaluating and declaring their scope of interests

within the forensic discipline. In some cases there will be disciplines, which the guidance group

believes are outside their scope due to new and novel techniques or a lack of scientific consensus

surrounding the discipline’s methodology. The forensic guidance group should have a mechanism in

place to periodically revaluate their declaration of scope by assessing scientific advances or other

pertinent developments within the field.

x An appeals process: All decisions adopted by the group can be appealed in writing to NIST for

final decision, by a panel of unbiased scientists with expertise in the field of interest. The NIST

appeals panel will make a public announcement in regards to their decision to support the group’s

decision or to refer the decision back to the group with comments on why the original decision is not

acceptable and ask for a reconsideration of the decision.

_______________________________________________________________________________ 

ADID Chair, Randall Beaty Ɣ Phone 512-424-5204 Ɣ FAX 512-424-5210 

Executive Committee: Chair Robert Zettl; ADID Vice Chair; Laura Liddicoat; ADID Past Chair 

Dennis Canfield, Ph.D., ADID Secretary Alka Lohmann

National Safety Council's 

Alcohol, Drugs, and Impairment Division 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 10 of 337
25 November 2013 

Re: Federal Register Notice on Possible Models for the Administration and

Support of Discipline-Specific Guidance Groups for Forensic Science 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

c/o Ms. Susan Ballou 

100 Bureau Drive, Mailstop 8102 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Dear Ms. Ballou: 

In response to the Notice of Inquiry published in the Federal Register (9/27/13), I write to offer 

comments on the possible models for the administration, structure and support of the DisciplineSpecific Guidance Groups. My professional work as an academic geneticist includes both 

teaching aspects of forensics to university students (undergraduate, medical, post-doctoral) and 

practical experience with applications of forensic DNA technology in civil and criminal cases. 

My forensic work has included sworn testimony in state, federal and military courts as well as 

use of DNA technology and statistical methods for human remains identification. In accord with 

the Notice of Inquiry, my comments are organized in the manner described in the Federal 

Register; 

Structure and Representation of the Guidance Groups 

 Given the large scope and important impact of the Guidance Groups on the deliberations

of the Commission, each group should be chaired (or co-chaired) by at least one member

of the Commission and a representative from NIST.

 Members of the Guidance Groups should be broad and balanced and allow input from

professional organizations involved in forensics and standard setting.

 Members should be selected after consultation with NIST and DOJ, by nomination of

individuals by recognized professional organizations or societies, or by open petition by

qualified individuals.

 Guidance Group members should be appointed for limited overlapping terms (not to

exceed five years, except by special arrangement). Members of each Guidance Group

should include all of the various stakeholders including academics with expertise in

specific disciplines relevant to the individual guidance group, practitioners of the forensic

discipline, as well as representatives with working knowledge of law enforcement

practices, public defenders, judges, and professional standards and laboratory

accreditation. A member with expertise in ethics also should be a member of each

Group. The idea of appointing community representation by the citizenry should be

considered.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 11 of 337
 Chairs of the Groups should meet on a regular basis with representatives from NIST and

DOJ to facilitate sharing of best practices and uniform practices across the Guidance

Groups. Several countries (e.g., Canada, Germany, and Netherlands) have organized

advisory groups that include non-government members for the purpose of providing

oversight and to review and monitor scientific practices, develop and propagate

standards, and recommend guidelines for evaluation of forensic evidence.

 So-called “crime labs” can exist as part of a variety of government agencies (e.g.,

medical examiner’s offices, local, state or federal police agencies, Depts. Health), or as

private for-profit companies. Each of these models should be examined, evaluated, and

compared.

 Existing forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) have been partially successful in

recommending useful standards in a number of forensic disciplines. Part of the success

of the SWGs relates to the hard work of many devoted individuals appointed to various

sub-groups within the individual SWGs. Such efforts are worthy of duplication in the

Guidance Groups. One limitation of the SWGs is that membership and attendance at the

SWG meetings has been (too) tightly controlled by the DOJ. Such control prevents some

alternate points of view on specific topics from being aired prior to finalizing documents.

Furthermore there has been little, if any, representation of the defense community during

the SWG activities.

 Partnership with a standards development organization (SDO) in which the standard is

issued by the SDO should not present major obstacles for participation by a broad range

of forensic science stakeholders in the development or adoption of a standard. On the

contrary, such partnerships would be a key element of deliberations by the Guidance

Groups.

 A fee-based model for membership on the Guidance Groups is not necessarily the best

way to establish the soundest scientific practices in forensics. Several state or federal

governments have established, by statute, committees or advisory groups to assist in the

oversight and governance of forensic practices. These groups include the Forensic

Commission (and its Subcommittees) of the New York State Division of Criminal Justice

Services, the several advisory groups appointed to oversee various activities of the Royal

Canadian Mounted Police, and the forensic oversight committee of the Commonwealth of

Virginia Department of Forensic Science. Positive attributes include official

appointments of the members, rotating membership, open-meeting rules, and authority to

issue reports and make binding recommendations.

2 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 12 of 337
Impact of Guidance Groups 

Collaborative consensus building with Federal, state and local community partners requires a 

coordinated effort by NIST and DOJ working closely with various Federal agencies, and state 

and local governments as well as with industry representatives and commercial laboratories. 

 The more open and transparent the Guidance Groups membership and activities, the

better they will be able to receive input from all interested parties and achieve target

goals.

 Subcommittees of the Guidance Groups should arrange to hold open meetings at some of

the relevant scientific or legal meetings around the US to present progress, challenges and

seek solutions to common problems. Such activities will serve two important purposes;

to allow interested parties who may not be direct participants in Guidance Groups to

engage in a meaningful way to have an impact on issues in front of the Guidance Groups,

and to help NIJ explore research gaps and aid in recognizing research priorities.

 NIST researchers should actively engage with the Guidance Groups either as attendees or

as regular members.

Scope of the Guidance Groups 

 At the outset, NIST must play the key role in organizing the Commission and the

Guidance Groups, with some consultation with Federal government, as well as state,

local, tribal and territorial governments.

 Whether all of the current forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) should transition

to Guidance Groups should be determined by the Forensic Commissioners. After

deliberation, broader groupings of forensic science disciplines might be identified that

could form the basis of Guidance Groups compared to the current group of twenty-one

SWGs.

 All of the Guidance Groups will require some common challenges, including statistical

evaluation of evidence and ethical practices in and out of the courtroom.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and suggestions for the important matters 

before our nation. 

Yours sincerely, 

Frederick R. Bieber, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor of Pathology 

Harvard Medical School 

3 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 13 of 337
“Forensic art is any art that aids in the identification, apprehension, or conviction of

criminal offenders, or that aids in the location of victims or identification of unknown 

deceased persons. It is a multi-faceted field based on a foundation of art and anatomy 

used in conjunction with science to aid in criminal investigations.”

(Taylor, K. T., Forensic Art and Illustration. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2001.) 

The field is unusual in that it combines technical expertise and skill in art with scientific 

knowledge gained from various other fields. For several decades, Forensic Art has been 

admitted for evidentiary purposes in courts of law. Though it can be a somewhat 

esoteric field, it has achieved general acceptance as an effective tool to enhance 

investigative functions. 

Since 1985, there has existed a Forensic Art discipline under the auspices of the 

International Association for Identification (IAI). There has also been a continually 

developing Forensic Art certification program as part of the IAI since the 1990s. 

Forensic Art practitioners from around the world have been involved as members and 

have contributed to this effort. Because of the long-established model that exists within 

the IAI, it is logical that a Forensic Art Guidance Group would benefit from this IAI-based 

foundation. 

Proposed model for a Forensic Art Guidance Group based on the NIST Notice of Inquiry 

format: 

1. Structure of the Guidance Groups:

- The group would be composed of designated, experienced and involved Forensic Art

practitioners. 

-They would have the ability to meet on a regular basis either physically or via video 

conference. 

- A similar initiative occurred in the UK with a multi-year Working Group for Facial 

Identification to develop best practices and consensus documentary standards. 

-Previous SWGs succeeded in bringing together the pertinent individuals and compiling 

their various concerns and ideas. 

-It should be noted that Forensic Art functions have been consistently difficult to define 

and quantify, making standardization challenging. In the Forensic Art field, there are 

numerous viable techniques that may successfully lead to a favorable outcome. For 

this reason, the IAI group has, to date, focused its efforts on development of standard 

terminology. A Forensic Art guidance group would need to define a range of suggested 

approaches rather than defining extremely specific guidelines for best practice. 

-Certain aspects of Forensic Art involve shared interests with the functions addressed by other 

SWGs such as: SWGANTH (anthropology), SWGIT(imaging technology) and 

FISWG (facial identification). Collaboration among disciplines whose interests intersect 

could lead to adoption of standards in terminology and encourage acceptance of 

principles mutually beneficial to all concerned. 

-Related to revenue generation, a fee-based membership would likely not be wellaccepted in the field of Forensic Art. 

-The currently existing discipline structure within the IAI encourages standardized 

Response from Suzanne Lowe Birdwell of the 

IAI Forensic Art Subcommittee

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 14 of 337
practice. An example of a coordinating body is the IAI’s Professional Programs Quality

Assurance Governing Board. The long-standing Forensic Art Certification program is a 

part of the effort of this board. 

2. Impact of Guidance Groups:

-Despite the challenges for standardization of Forensic Art techniques, meaningful 

practical standards are possible. Efforts are already being made to achieve this. 

A “Standards and Guidelines for Forensic Art and Facial Identification” document exists and is

currently posted on the IAI website. Regular updates and further refinement of these 

documents are on-going. 

-In addition, standardized curriculum guidelines for instructors are currently being 

implemented as part of the Forensic Art Certification Program. The advancement of 

educational curriculum guidelines will further encourage uniformity of training and 

practice over time. Because these curriculum suggestions are already available to all 

forensic art educators via the IAI website, transparency is achieved. Ultimately, 

education may the best avenue to lead to adoption of standards over the long term. 

-The ongoing work of the IAI Forensic Art Discipline, with the enhancement from a new 

Guidance Group can recognize and identify prospective areas for NIST input. Through

communication between experienced Forensic Art practitioners in the Guidance Group 

and the NIST, enhanced quality and consistency of terminology and techniques should 

naturally develop. Areas of needed research will also be identified and solidified by the 

coordinated effort as well. 

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups:

-Forensic artists on a Guidance Group should represent a diverse spectrum of 

geographical areas and types of law enforcement agencies. Consideration should also 

be given to inclusion of practitioners who work on a freelance basis. 

-Guidance Groups should include a majority of individuals with proven accomplishments 

and contributions to Forensic Art. There should be a cross-section of practitioners with 

significant depth of experience. 

-Guidance Group members should represent knowledge from the various sub-disciplines 

within the Forensic Art field: composite imagery, cranio-facial growth and 

aging, and post mortem identification techniques for deceased individuals. 

-In addition, the group should include artists with skill sets in all art media, to include: drawing, 

sculpture, 2-D and 3-D digital imaging. 

-Special benefit could be gained by inclusion of some artists with previous participation 

on Forensic Art boards or committees or other SWGs related to Forensic Art. 

-Although not actually seated on the Guidance Group, other stakeholders in the process 

could include members of law enforcement, the forensic science community, crime 

victims, and the general public. More that most any other forensic discipline, Forensic Art

involves direct interaction with people. 

-The existing affiliation of the forensic art discipline and the IAI has already gone a long 

way toward achieving visibility with other related organizations. Groups such as the 

American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and the International Association of Chiefs of 

Response from Suzanne Lowe Birdwell of the 

IAI Forensic Art Subcommittee

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 15 of 337
Police currently have working interactions with the IAI. The Guidance Group can apply 

this same sense of affiliation with those and other groups that hold similar goals. 

-To accommodate interested parties, it is quite easy to create a publicly accessible 

on-line group or website that allows input from various sources. It is recommended that 

such an Internet-based group or website be managed by members of a Guidance 

Group rather than by any one individual. 

-Composition of a Guidance Group should be varied and balanced as described above. 

State and local law enforcement entities can contribute by offering any needed support 

for employees who are asked to participate in the group. This might include time away 

from normal duties, equipment or travel expenses, etc. The primary contribution of the 

Federal government should be funding. 

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups:

-It is difficult to assess the need for continuation of SWGs for disciplines other than our 

own.

-No SWG has ever existed specifically for Forensic Art. The creation of a Forensic Art 

Guidance Group seems strongly indicated. 

-As previously stated, certain SWGs have addressed material somewhat related to 

Forensic Art. However, more specific evaluation is needed. Findings and 

results could be compared with other Guidance Groups. 

-Through amiable interaction and communication between Guidance Groups, 

reasonable correlation of material could be achieved. 

Respectfully submitted by:

Karen T. Taylor Stephen Mancusi 

Facial Images, Austin, TX Forensic and Digital Artist & Illustrator 

TX Dep’t. of Public Safety Forensic Artist, Retired Detective First Grade - NYPD, Retired 

Former IAI Subcommittee member Recent past IAI Certification Board Chair 

Current IAI Certification Board member 

Donald C. Stahl, III Suzanne Lowe Birdwell 

Sergeant / Forensic Artist TX Dep’t. of Public Safety Forensic Artist

Charles County Sheriff’s Office, La Plata, MD (Texas Rangers’ Division)

Former IAI Subcommittee Chair Current IAI Subcommittee Chair 

Current IAI Certification Board Chair 

Response from Suzanne Lowe Birdwell of the 

IAI Forensic Art Subcommittee

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 16 of 337
Response from Brett M. D. Bishop 

The commenter only has knowledge of SWGDOC’s structure and procedures of operation. 

1. Structure of the Guidance Groups

• Given the scope and principles of the Guidance Groups outlined here, what are structural

models that could best support the Guidance Groups, taking into account the technical, 

policy, legal, and operational aspects of forensic science? There needs to be a governing GG 

and disciple GGs. The governing GG ensures that uniform products are coming from the disciple 

GGs. All GG members of the discipline GGs should be actively working casework and meet the 

technical qualifications. It would be beneficial to have experts in the areas of policy, legal, and 

editing on the GG or have access to them. There should be a minimum of a chair, vice-chair, and 

secretary. The GG members are put in subgroups of 3-5 people to develop and review standards. 

Members may also be assigned to membership, research, or other committees. 

• What elements or models would facilitate the sharing of best practices and uniform

practices across the Guidance Groups? A governing GG that oversees all of the GGs would 

help facilitate sharing and ensure uniform practices. It may also be appropriate for the governing 

GG to develop common terminology and standards like reporting, note taking, technical review, 

and other standards that can be applied to all GGs be drafted with input from disciple GGs. It 

would also help to if there was standardization of bylaws and procedures for drafting standards. 

• Are there public policies or private sector initiatives in other countries that have

successfully strengthened the nation’s use of forensic science by supporting the 

development and propagation of forensic science consensus documentary standards, 

identifying needs of forensic science research and measurement standards, and verifying 

the scientific basis exists for each discipline? If so, what are they? The commenter is 

unfamiliar with policies in other countries. 

• What are the elements which make existing forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs)

successful? Are there examples of best practices in specific SWGs that ought to be 

replicated in Guidance Groups? If so, what are they? The members of SWGDOC are active, 

efficient, diligent participants that are willing to work together. The meeting is at an economical 

location that allows for maximum participation. SWGDOC reviews and meets as a longer group 

to approve standards ready for publication. They work in smaller groups of 3-5 people as they 

draft standards. 

• Would partnership with a standards development organization (SDO) in which the

standard is issued by the SDO present any obstacle for participation by a broad range of 

forensic science stakeholders in the development of a standard? If so, why? SWGDOC felt it 

did present an obstacle. The commenter is unfamiliar with other SDOs, but ASTM did not work 

well for QD. The standards were not freely available to anyone and could only be obtained if

purchased. Only members of the SDO could participate in the development of the standard. 

SWGDOC decided to self publish to make the information freely available and allow for more 

people to comment on development of the standards. SWGDOC addresses each comment as 

appropriate. The change from publishing through ASTM to self publishing has increased the 

speed of development. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 17 of 337
Response from Brett M. D. Bishop 

• Would partnership with an SDO in which the standard is issued by the SDO present any

obstacle to broad adoption of a standard? If so, why? Yes it may. Again, if the SDO is similar 

to ASTM where the only way the standards may be obtained are through purchase or a fee based 

membership, then some may not choose to adopt the standards. Unless courts, certification, or 

accreditation mandate or force the adoption of standards, there will not be complete compliance. 

• Would a fee-based membership model run through a not-for-profit organization (similar

to the National Conference of Weights and Measures) present a significant obstacle for 

participation? Yes, it may. It depends on fees, benefits, and participation roles. Little 

information was obtained regarding NCWM membership, benefits, and participation to be used 

as an example to determine if it may be a significant obstacle. Individuals or labs may not 

participate if they do not see the benefit outweighing the cost. 

• If the Guidance Groups followed a fee-based membership model, are there appropriatelytiered systems for fees that would prevent ‘‘pricing out’’ organizations, including 

individuals? No comment.

• Other than a privatized model, are there other means to maintain governance or

coordinating body in the long term? If possible, please give examples of existing structures 

and their positive and negative attributes. The commenter sees two options: privatized model 

or government funded. The privatized model has the governing body expenses paid through fees. 

There may not be complete participation because of the fees. Also, unless there are member 

qualification requirements, anyone can pay to be a member. This has caused some problems in 

the past. If it was government funded, then subsidized fees or no fees may be necessary. 

However, a problem with relying on government funding is that it is subject to approval, cuts, 

and battles over budget. 

2. Impact of Guidance Groups

In its role in administering and supporting the Guidance Groups, NIST’s aim is to improve 

discipline practices by advancing forensic science standards and techniques through a 

collaborative consensus building process with Federal, state and local community partners. 

NIST thus seeks comments about the ways in which the structure, function and operation 

would best support the Guidance Groups by being a catalyst for such improvements. 

• Given that the Guidance Groups cannot mandate the adoption of standards, what can

they do to best leverage their position and encourage adoption? To what extent does 

membership and transparency impact possible adoption of guidance at the state and local 

level? NIST could work with accreditation bodies to ensure use of standards. A court decision 

could also mandate the use of standards. NIST could work with Congress to implement 

standards. Availability of the standards has a greater impact than membership on the adoption of 

standards. Transparency also has an impact. NIST is not in the position to police the use of the 

standards. 

• Are there best practices or models to consider with regard to a structure that would

encourage effective communication with the scientific community to explore research gaps 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 18 of 337
Response from Brett M. D. Bishop 

and aid in recognizing research priorities? Each GG should have a research subgroup. This 

subgroup would publish research priorities and needs. They would coordinate with research labs 

and universities. Public concerns and comments received via website from the legal community, 

academia, or anyone else would be reviewed and published by the subgroup. The subgroup 

should have people with adequate background to ensure that projects are thorough and valid. A 

NIST researcher should also part of this subgroup. 

• How should NIST researchers engage with the Guidance Groups in support of the goal to

strengthen the nation’s use of forensic science by supporting the development and 

propagation of forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of 

forensic science research and measurement standards, and verifying the scientific basis 

exists for each discipline? There should be a NIST researcher or representative in each GG 

Research subgroup. 

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups

Given the diverse, multi-sector set of stakeholders in forensic science, representation in 

Guidance Groups must be carefully balanced and inclusive. 

• Who are the stakeholders who should be represented on the Guidance Groups? What

steps can NIST take to ensure appropriately broad representation within the Guidance 

Groups? What does balanced representation mean and how can it be achieved? The 

membership shall, to the extent possible, provide representation from a balance of federal 

government, non-federal government, and private forensic laboratories, with consideration to 

geographic diversity. The GG should have a max number of members. 

• What is the best way to engage organizations playing a role in forensic science, standards

development and practice? Participation should be encouraged and advertised.

• How should interested parties who may not be direct participants in Guidance Groups,

engage in a meaningful way to have an impact on issues in front of the Guidance Groups?

Participation should be encouraged and advertised. There may be more participation if there is 

not a fee associated with participating. 

• To what extent and in what ways must the Federal government, as well as state, local,

tribal and territorial governments be involved at the outset? They should definitely be 

involved as they are major participants, so representation must be present. 

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups

• Should all of the current forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) transition to

Guidance Groups? Unsure. Reviewing the list of SWGs, there appears to be lab based and 

scene based. NIST has to decide if all are necessary and to what extent they can be funded. 

However, there should be GG for each forensic discipline representing common examinations in 

crime laboratories across the nation, both lab and scene based. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 19 of 337
Response from Brett M. D. Bishop 

• Are there broader groupings of forensic science disciplines that could form the basis of

Guidance Groups than the current group of twenty-one SWGs? If so, what are those 

groupings? Unsure. GGs could be grouped by examinations in the lab and those at scenes. It 

may be acceptable as long as the groupings don’t adversely impact the function of the GGs or the 

production of standards. 

• Is there a need for a crossdisciplinary functional approach (i.e. statistical analysis) and

how could the Guidance Groups be structured to best address that need? The governing GG 

is aware of everything that the discipline GGs are doing. If a research proposal applies to 

numerous disciplines, then those GGs should be communicating with each other (for example, 

impression and pattern). If standards apply to multiple GGs, it is the governing GG responsibility 

to ensure collaboration of the discipline GGs. The governing GG monitors and coordinates these 

activities. 

• To what extent do Guidance Groups need to support different forensic science disciplines

differently from one another? They should be supported similarly. The commenter is unaware 

of the need for a GG to be supported more or less than another GG. GGs should have similar 

budgets for meetings and production of standards, number of members, and availability of 

resources. 

Brett!M.!D.!Bishop

Forensic!Scientist

Questioned!Documents!Section

WASHINGTON!STATE!PATROL

Spokane!Crime!Laboratory

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 20 of 337
Response from Sue Black 

Dear Ms Ballou

I read with interest concerning the guidance groups for forensic science. In the UK we have just 

completed a first round of accreditation, curriculum setting and examinations for forensic 

anthropology. It has been a most sobering event and if our experiences were of any assistance to NIST 

then it would be our pleasure to feed into the groups.

Also, we run training programmes in Interpol standard DVI training and have written the practitioners 

guide to DVI - only text I believe on this subject to date. If our experience in this subject was also 

considered to be of any value, as we are practitioners within this field as well as trainers and researchers, 

then again it would be our pleasure to assist.

Kindest regards

Prof Sue Black OBE BSc PhD DSc FRSE FRAI FRCPSEd HFRCPSG Cert- FAI

Director

Centre for Anatomy and Human Identification

Deputy Principal

University of Dundee

http://cahid.dundee.ac.uk

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 21 of 337
Response from Ted Burkes 

NIST Response

1. Structure of Guidance Groups:

Given the scope and principles of the Guidance Groups outlined here, what are structural models 

that could best support the Guidance Groups, taking into account the technical, policy, legal, and 

operational aspects of forensic science? 

A Guidance Group’s (formerly Scientific Working Group) purpose is discipline specific. Those 

practitioners who participate in the Guidance Group, producing standards and research needs, are 

trained and use the discipline on a daily basis. These individuals should form the core of any 

Guidance Group and have absolute control over the technical issues that are dealt with. They are 

not necessarily legal or policy experts. In my opinion, the Guidance Groups should be made up 

of numerous practitioners, with an external advisory committee available for consultation 

regarding the non-technical issues that the question refers to. 

What elements or models would facilitate the sharing of best practices and uniform practices 

across the Guidance Groups? 

An effort has been made to create a body of the current Scientific Working Group Chairs with 

this purpose as one of their goals. Standardization in format of standards is one of the goals. 

Vetting a SWG’s standards through the other Working Groups, as well as the forensic 

community and general public, is another. Allowing this group to organize and progress will be 

beneficial to forensic science and the judicial system as a whole. 

Are there public policies or private sector initiatives in other countries that have successfully 

strengthened the nation's use of forensic science by supporting the development and propagation 

of forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of forensic science 

research and measurement standards, and verifying the scientific basis exists for each discipline? 

If so, what are they? 

While I’m not that familiar with it, I do know that the European Network of Forensic Science 

Institutes (ENFSI) is a model that can be emulated, with modification, for setting up the 

Guidance Groups. This organization, with its members, has generated Working Groups for 

various disciplines and generated best practices for use throughout Europe. 

What are the elements which make existing forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) 

successful? 

As I am only fully knowledgeable of SWGDOC, my comments will reflect what is known with 

that organization. First and foremost, the members are practitioners. As members, they are 

trained in the discipline, whether in all aspects, or in several sub-disciplines within forensic 

document examination (an example of this would be an ink chemist). The members are 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 22 of 337
Response from Ted Burkes 

testifying examiners who know what is needed to conduct examinations and testify, in a court of 

law or other venue, to the result of their examinations. Additionally, the members of SWGDOC 

represent a balance of three sub-groups within the discipline – federal government practitioners, 

state and local government practitioners, and practitioners from the private sector. Draft 

standards are generated by small committees, generally consisting of five to seven individuals, 

and vetted through the entire body of the SWG. 

However, to speak to one SWG that I am not as familiar with, SWGDAM is successful because 

the National DNA Index System (NDIS) database was established by law. According to 

Wikipedia, “The DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. §14132) authorized the 

establishment of this National DNA Index. The DNA Act specifies the categories of data that 

may be maintained in NDIS (convicted offenders, arrestees, legal, detainees, forensic 

(casework), unidentified human remains, missing persons and relatives of missing persons) as 

well as requirements for participating laboratories relating to quality assurance, privacy and 

expungement.” Because it is established by law, it is enforceable (and successful). 

Are there examples of best practices in specific SWGs that ought to be replicated in Guidance 

Groups? If so, what are they? 

The group of SWG chairs mentioned above was creating a joint glossary of all of the terms in 

use by each SWG. While this is not a best practice, it is an example of a document that can be 

consolidated and used throughout the SWG community. As to a specific best practice that would 

apply to all of the SWG’s, I am not aware of one. 

Would partnership with a standards development organization (SDO) in which the standard is 

issued by the SDO present any obstacle for participation by a broad range of forensics science 

stakeholders in the development of a standard? 

Yes. 

If so, why?

My only SDO experience is with ASTM, International (ASTM), so my remarks will reflect my 

experience with that particular SDO. 

ASTM requires membership ($75.00 a year) to participate, or pay to play. While ASTM did not 

require you to be a member to comment on a draft standard, to my knowledge that was the only 

way you got a notification that a draft was available for comment. Therefore, the commenters on 

a draft proposal were overwhelmingly ASTM members. Additionally, once the standard is 

finalized, it was copyrighted by ASTM and the standard had to be purchased to be used (other 

than a one-time use for each standard by a member). So even though the SWG drafted and wrote 

a standard, because they chose to publish through ASTM, they could not use the standard 

without violating copyright laws (unless they paid for the use). There was also a limitation on 

quoting from an ASTM standard in a report without paying for it. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 23 of 337
Response from Ted Burkes 

The effect of SWGDOC’s experience with ASTM was that it was an unnecessary venue to use to 

publish standards. Other SWGs (SWGFAST and SWGTREAD, for instance) self published and 

had no difficulty in courts of law with acceptance of their standards in their discipline. As a 

result, SWGDOC voted for and decided to cease publishing through ASTM so that the standards 

that were being produced could be provided to all that needed them, free of charge. 

Would partnership with an SDO in which the standard is issued by the SDO present any obstacle 

to broad adoption of a standard? If so, why? 

While there is no limitation to adoption of a standard by those who use it, whether it be 

practitioner, attorney, or judge, use of an SDO unnecessarily delays the amount of time it takes 

to take a standard from draft to final, and adds an unnecessary expense. Additionally, our 

experience with ASTM limited the exposure of the draft for review. 

Would a fee-based membership model run through a not-for-profit organization (similar to the 

National Conference of Weights and Measures) present a significant obstacle for participation? 

Yes. The issue is not necessarily that fees are being charged or incurred, but that the standards 

that are published are followed by the practitioners and that they be required by law or 

regulation. The example of the National Conference on Weights and Measures is a good one, in 

that this body/group carries no enforceabilityof their standards, other than that mandated by laws 

and regulations (whether from Federal agencies and Congress, or from state and local entities). 

Yet there are laws and regulations for weights and measures, and as a result, there is 

enforceability for those standards. This is yet another example of the enforceability of the 

standards because there are laws or regulations requiring it (see NDIS example above). 

If the Guidance Groups followed a fee-based membership model, are there appropriately-tiered 

systems for fees that would prevent “pricing out” organizations, including individuals? 

I don’t understand how this question applies to forensic science. 

Other than a privatized model, are there other means to maintain a governance or coordinating 

body in the long term? If possible, please give examples of existing structures and their positive 

and negative attributes. 

The current SWG system is not based on a privatized model and seems to be working well, as 

long as there is funding for them to operate. While the current SWG system is not standardized, 

efforts are in the works to do that. As I understand it, only ten of the current SWGs are/were 

funded by NIJ. The rest were funded by various other agencies or groups. To attain consistency 

between all of the SWGs, it would be beneficial if they were all working and reporting to the 

same entity. 

2. Impact of Guidance Groups:

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 24 of 337
Response from Ted Burkes 

Given that the Guidance Groups cannot mandate the adoption of standards, what can they do to 

best leverage their position and encourage adoption? 

Without a doubt, the best way to ensure that standards are adopted by practitioners and courts of 

law, is through laws and regulations. Short of that, the standards are used by practitioners as a 

result of training and/or integrity in their practice. 

To what extent does membership and transparency impact possible adoption of guidance at the 

state and local level? 

While membership (in a Guidance Group) is not necessary for a state or local practitioner (and 

this would also include the private practitioner) to adopt a standard, participation is. Every 

practitioner should have an opportunity to provide input to a standard. Transparency in the 

manner in which a standard is prepared and finalized is essential to that standard being used by 

practitioners. 

Are there best practices or models to consider with regard to a structure that would encourage 

effective communication with the scientific community to explore research gaps and aid in 

recognizing research priorities? 

Not that I am aware of. 

How should NIST researchers engage with the Guidance Groups in support of the goal to 

strengthen the nation's use of forensic science by supporting the development and propagation of 

forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of forensic science research 

and measurement standards, and verifying the scientific basis exists for each discipline? 

NIST researchers could be used to validate, or further validate, the underpinnings of a discipline 

or sub-discipline, as well as conducted directed research that would benefit the various 

disciplines. 

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups:

Who are the stakeholders who should be represented on the Guidance Groups? 

Generally speaking, there are three levels of stakeholders in the field of forensic document 

examination: The practitioner, the courts, and the public. 

The practitioners in this discipline are made up of government examiners (those working in a 

crime laboratory, funded at the federal, state, county, or local level, who work with evidence 

generally submitted to that laboratory by law enforcement agencies) and private practitioners 

(those who maintain a private business and are available for hire by anyone). These individuals 

are the technical experts for the discipline and also know the limitations of what can be done and 

said. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 25 of 337
Response from Ted Burkes 

The second level of stakeholder is the legal system, whether it be of a criminal, civil, or 

administrative nature. This is generally the group that the practitioner provides services to. 

The last group of stakeholders would be the general public, who are either using an attorney or 

other legal representation that has hired a practitioner, or an individual who chooses to hire a 

practitioner for a non-legal issue. 

What steps can NIST take to ensure appropriately broad representation within the Guidance 

Groups? 

An announcement to the Federal Register, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and 

regional organizations should suffice. 

What does balanced representation mean and how can it be achieved? 

Balanced representation means that practitioners from throughout the discipline have a voice. In 

SWGDOC, this was achieved by balancing the number of 1) federal government, 2) state and 

local government, and 3) private examiners, with an additional effort to obtain broad geographic 

representation also. 

What is the best way to engage organizations playing a role in forensic science, standards 

development and practice? 

Make the use of the standards mandatory by law or regulation 

How should interested parties who may not be direct participants in Guidance Groups, engage in 

a meaningful way to have an impact on issues in front of the Guidance Groups? 

The interested party should address the issue to the Guidance Group through the web site’s 

contact menu. The Guidance Group leadership should respond to, and carry it forward if 

appropriate, any issue that is raised. 

To what extent and in what ways must the Federal government, as well as state, local, tribal and 

territorial governments be involved at the outset? 

Funding, to the extent possible, and allowing discipline-trained experts to participate in the 

process. 

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups:

Should all of the current forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) transition to Guidance 

Groups? 

There appears to be some overlap in what some of the SWGs do, but then you have SWGMAT, 

which has five (or six?) mini-SWGs under its umbrella. Where there is commonality among 

SWGs, there could be some joining of the work that is done. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 26 of 337
Response from Ted Burkes 

Are there broader groupings of forensic science disciplines that could form the basis of Guidance 

Groups than the current group of twenty-one SWGs? If so, what are those groupings? 

There are, but there is also overlap from several SWGs into another broader grouping. For 

instance, SWGDOC is primarily a comparison-based SWG, however, there are chemistry aspects 

to the discipline (ink and paper) which have to be addressed. 

Is there a need for a cross disciplinary functional approach (i.e. statistical analysis) and how 

could the Guidance Groups be structured to best address that need? 

There is some cross disciplinary consistencies among many disciplines. For instance, the 

impression and pattern evidence SWGs could be grouped. However, it is my understanding that 

the statistical analysis would vary from one discipline to another, even in this group. 

To what extent do Guidance Groups need to support different forensic science disciplines 

differently from one another? 

Similar Guidance Groups, grouped together as suggested in the previous question, would be 

useful for at least two functions. One is that their understanding would be very beneficial in 

reviewing draft standards. The other is that this Impression group could be used as an appeals 

level, if need be, for the production of standards. 

Ted Burkes 

FBI 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 27 of 337
LESSONS&LEARNED&FROM&DEVELOPING&TECHNICAL&WORKING&GROUPS

Carole&E&Chaski&PhD&

Institute(for(Linguistic(Evidence

ALIAS(Technology(LLC(

BACKGROUND

As(part(of(my(visiting(fellowship(at(the(National(Institute(of(Justice’s(Office(of(Science(and(

Technology((NIJ(OST)(from(1995(through(1998(and(subsequent(grant(funding,(I(provided(

technical(support(to(Dr.(Richard(Rau,(the(Program(Manager(for(Investigative(and(Forensic(

Sciences.(At(the(time(of(my(arrival(at(NIJ,(Dr.(Rau(was(the(only(person(tasked(with(forensic(

science(grant(management,(and(I(was(the(first(visiting(fellow(for(OST,(so(Dr.(Rau(and(I(

immediately(began(to(work(on(a(multitude(of(issues(that(were(facing(the(forensic(science(

community(and(to(develop(a(research(agenda(for(forensic(sciences.(It(was(a(very(exciting(

time:(several(high(profile(cases(such(as(the(O.J.(Simpson(trial(and(the(JonBenét(Ramsey(

investigation(as(well(as(the(successful(challenge(to(handwriting(identification(in(the(

Starzecpyzel(case(were(demonstrating(to(both(the(forensic(science(community(and(the(

American(public(that(training(and(methods(in(forensic(sciences(needed(research(support.(

The(growth(of(NIJ’s(forensic(science(program(was(directly(related(to(these(cases(and(the(

public(attention(they(generated.

While(NIJ’s(means(of(fulfilling(its(mission(primarily(involved(research(grant(solicitation(and(

funding,(and(conferences(on(current(issues,(Technical(Working(Groups((TWGs)(became(

another(way(that(NIJ(could(support(the(forensic(science(community.((With(Dr.(Rau,(I(

authored(the(NIJ$Template$for$Technical$Working$Groups((attached(as(Appendix(1)(as(a(way(

to(standardize(the(process(for(developing(TWGs,(and(to(teach(the(process(to(the(new(

contractors,(Lisa(Kaas,(Anjali(Ranadive(Swienton(and(Saralyn(Borrowman,(coming(in(to(

support(the(forensic(science(division.(

I(became(very(involved(with(two(TWGs,(planning(and(serving(on(subcommittees(of(

TWGEYEE(for(Eyewitness(Evidence(and(TWGDOC(for(Questioned(Documents.(I(was(

involved(in(planning(TWGSCENE(for(Crime(Scene(Investigation(and(TWGED(for(Forensic(

Science(Education,(and(guiding(the(process(for(TWGECSI(for(Electronic(Crime(Scene(

Investigation,(but(my(experiences(with(TWGEYEE(and(TWGDOC(were(much(more(

extensive.

Since(the(NIST\administered(Guidance(Groups(are(clearly(related(to(T/SWGs,(I(would(like(

to(address(some(lessons(I(learned(in(developing(TWGs(at(NIJ,(and(my(thoughts(about(the(

NIJ$Template,(looking(back(now(and(seeing(how(certain(TWGs(developed.(

The(danger(of(any(consensus(or(standard\setting(group(is(that(it(may(become(the(rubber(

stamp(of(a(clique(who,(by(affiliation(or(funding,(dominates(the(group(even(if(the(clique(does(

not(enjoy(the(same(status(within(the(particular(forensic(science(community.((Therefore,(I(

suggest(that,(while(the(NIJ$Template still(serves(as(a(good(starting(point(for(the(NIST(

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 28 of 337
2(

Guidance(Groups,(lessons(learned(from(inclusion,(funding(and(process\initiation(should(

inform(NIST’s(process(model(for(developing(and(sustaining(Guidance(Groups,(as(detailed(

below.(Many(of(my(experiences(support(and(confirm(the(description(of(Guidance(Groups(in(

the(Notice(of(Inquiry.(I(hope(that(my(thoughts(will(add(some(helpful(and(practical(

dimension(to(NIST’s(current(ideas.(

MAIN!POINTS!FOR!NIST GUIDANCE!GROUPS

My(main(points(are:(

(1)(Inclusion(of(all(stakeholders(lends(credibility(to(the(Guidance(Group;(unprincipled(

exclusion(of(individuals(affiliated(with certain(groups(or(clique\based(selective(inclusion(

undermines(the(credibility(of(the(Guidance(Group(and(its(work(product.(Decisions(about(

group(inclusion(should(be(based(on(expertise,(with(all(relevant(stakeholder(interests(

represented.(The(vetting(procedure(for(membership(is(the(most(difficult(and(yet(most(

fundamentally(predictive(process(in(the(ultimate(success(of(the(Group.(

(2)(Decisions(about(funding(support(for(the(Group(should(be(independent(of decisions(

about(inclusion(or(membership.((

(3)(The(funding(agency(should(not(have(representative(subject(matter(experts(in(the(group,(

lest(the(consensus(appear(to(be(purchased(by(the(funding(agency.

(4)(Purpose(and(mission(should(be(initiated(by(stakeholders(and(clearly(defined(to(include(

both(current(issues(and(long\term(research(goals.(Identifying(research(gaps(typically(

requires(researchers(to(be(in(the(discussion(because(practitioners(cannot(always(see(the(

gaps.

(5)(Standards(should(be(clearly(marked(as(being(promulgated(based(on(common(practice(

and/or(empirical(research(results.(Otherwise,(standards(based(on(current(common(

practices(can(misrepresent(or(exaggerate(the(empirical(foundations(of(common(practice,(as(

lay(readers(and(consumers(such(as(attorneys(or(judges(may(assume(that(common(practices(

are(empirically(validated(simply(because(they(appear(in(standards.(

Basic!Principles!of!Group!Structure!!

As(shown(in(Appendix(I,(NIJ’s(vision(for(TWGs(has(three(fundamental(characteristics:(first,(

it(relies(on(the(forensic(science(community((defined(inclusively)(to(initiate(a(group(for(

consensus\building;(second,(it(is(inclusive,(expanding(the(circle(for(membership(to(all(

possible(stakeholders,(and(third,(it(uses(the(TWG(as(a(problem\solving(mechanism,(where(

the(problems(are(defined(expansively,(from(standards\reporting,(to(standards\setting,(to(

research(identification.(

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 29 of 337
3(

Thus,(the(NIJ$Template$for$Technical$Working$Groups is(based(on(a(few(principles:((i)(

stakeholder(initiation((i.e.(market\driven),((ii)(inclusivity,(and((iii)(problem\solving.((These(

principles(interact.(

Stakeholders(are(seen(inclusively,(meaning(that(the(stakeholders(for(forensic(science(

include(all(jurisdictional(levels((Federal,(State,(Local),(all(geographic(areas((US(regions;(

rural,(metropolitan(and(urban),(both(prosecution(and(defense,(forensic(

scientists/examiners(both(in(government(employment(and(in(the(private(sector,(

researchers(in(government(employment,(academia(and(in(the(private(sector,(and(law(

enforcement.((

Stakeholder(initiation(shows(problem\solving.(When(a(problem(in(any(forensic(science(

discipline(rises(to(a(level(that(a(stakeholder(wants(to(address(it(with(the(help(of(other(

stakeholders,(then(forensic(science(is(functioning(proactively(to(better(itself(and(the(judicial(

system.(Problem\solving(can(also(be(retrospective,(in(the(sense(that(standards(can(codify(

what(has(been(common(practice(in(a(field.(However,(even(codifying(standards(can(have(a(

proactive(effect(because(this(process(can(highlight(or(expose(research(gaps,(points(where(

common(practice(lacks(empirical(foundation(even(if(it(has(community(endorsement.(

The!Vetting!Procedure!!

In(the(NIJ(Template,(there(are(two(stages(for(membership.(First,(the(NIJ(staff(pulls(together(

a(TWG(Consultant Panel((sometimes(called(the(Planning(Panel),(and(then(the(TWG(

Consultant(Panel(and(NIJ(staff(pull(together(the(Membership(Resource(Pool.(Membership(

relies(on(the(vetting(procedure(for(developing(the(TWG(Consultant Panel(and(the(

Membership(Pool.(It(is(worth(quoting(from(the(NIJ$Template to describe(this(vetting(

procedure:

NIJ(Staff((or(contractor)(researches(the(issues(behind(the(request.(This(preliminary(

research(may(include:( (

a. what(are(the(most(important(research(findings(to(date;(

b. who(are(the(researchers(working(in(this(topic(area;

c. what(are(the(current(technologies(related(to(this(topic(area;

d. who(are(the(developers(and/or(marketers(of(these(technologies;((

e. what(practitioner\based(organizations(concerned(with(the(topic(area(are(

operating(at(the(national,(state(and(local(levels;

f. who(are(the(current(officers(of(these(organizations.

This(research(enables(NIJ(to(assemble(a(TWG(Consultant(Panel(consisting(of(three(or(

four(experts(in(the(field(...(the(TWG(Consultant(Panel(reviews(the(NIJ(Staff's(initial(

research(and(insures(that(the(research(into(the(issue,(major(players,(organizations,(

technologies,(etc.(is(both(complete(and(accurate.(

Quoting(again(from(the(NIJ$Template,$note(that(expertise(is(crucial(for(selection (italics(

added):

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 30 of 337
4(

Based(on(earlier(discussions(with(the(TWG(Consultant(Panel,(NIJ(Staff(drafts(an(

agenda(of(issues(for(the(TWG.(The(draft(plays(an(important(role(in(determining(the(

necessary$expertise$and$composition$of$the$membership.(

The(Membership(Resource(Pool(consists(of(all(national,(regional,(state(and(local(

organizations(which(are(related(by(discipline(to(the(community\articulated(issue(of(

the(TWG,(researchers(within(the(discipline,(and(any(private(sector(entities(within(

the(discipline.(When(NIJ's(Director(requests(nominations(from(the(Membership(

Resource(Pool,(he(specifies(three(criteria(to(be(met(by(the(nominees.(These(three(

criteria(are,(first,(that(the(nominees(should(represent(a(specific(regional(

distribution;(second,(the((nominees(should(have(the$specific$expertise$needed$for$the$

TWG's$tasks;(and(third,(that(the(nominees(should(be(available(and(committed(to(

active(participation(in(the(TWG,(including(the(attendance(of(meetings(and(writing(of(

reports.

The(vetting(procedure(requires(a(strong(ability(for(searching,(reading,(assessing(and(

categorizing(both(scientific(literature(and(news(media.(It(is(really(crucial(for(NIST(Guidance(

Groups,(as(it(was(for(NIJ(TWGs,(that(staff(be(trained(in(how(to(conduct(this(vetting(

procedure,(as(this(can(bring(to(the(surface(people(who(have(a(lot(to(contribute.(For(

instance,(practitioners(do(not(normally(publish(in(research(journals,(but(practitioners(can(

be(found(through(professional(organizations,(law(enforcement(academies,(and(media(

reports on(cases(at(the(State(and(local(levels.(On(the(other(hand,(researchers(can(be(found(

whose(research(indirectly(relates(to(a(forensic(issue,(and(once(the(researcher(understands(

this(connection,(a(new(possibility(for(basic(scientific(work(in(service(to(forensic(science(

opens(up(for(a(field.(This(vetting(procedure(is(how(I(found(Dr.(Sargur(Srihari’s(work(on(

handwriting(recognition;(I(approached(him(with(the(possibility(of(converting(the(

recognition(algorithms(into(identification(algorithms(by(collecting(the(measurements(

which(are(usually(discarded(in(recognition.(Dr.(Srihari(agreed(that(this(algorithmic(tweak(

was(possible(and(eventually(created(CEDAR\FOX(as(an(automated(measurement(system(for(

forensic(handwriting(identification.(

Clearly,(some(background(knowledge(enables(the(staff(to(perform(the(vetting(procedure,(

and(care(should(be(taken(to(assign(staff(to(their(strengths.(For(example,(Lisa(Kaas(had(a(B.A.(

in(psychology(and(a(strong(ability(to(read(and(assess(psychological(research(literature.(Her(

work(was(especially(important(in(the(vetting(procedure(for(TWGEYEE(membership.(NIST(

has(a(wealth(of(staff(scientists(who can(support(the(Guidance(Group(vetting(procedure,(

bringing(their(background(knowledge(to(the(table.

NIJ(staff(also(conducted(telephone(conversations(with(potential(participants.(This(would(

allow(us(to(discuss(issues(in(forensic(science(and(frankly(“get(a feel”(for(the(potential(

participant’s(ethics(and(commitment(to(justice(and(forensic(science.(Sometimes,(as(a(team(

Lisa(Kaas,(Anjali(Swienton(and(I(would(have(separate(conversations(with(the(possible(

participants(and(compare(notes.(During(these(conversations(we(were(extremely(careful(not(

to(issue(an(invitation,(because(those(would(come(from(the(NIJ(Director,(but(to(broach(

questions(about(the(particular(problem(at(hand.(

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 31 of 337
5(

While(the(vetting(procedure(serves(to(identify(participants(who(can(make(or(have(made(

contributions(to(the(particular(forensic(science,(the(vetting(procedure(also(must(serve(the(

complementary(function(of(screening(out(possible(participants.(It(is(just(a(plain(fact(that(

within(the(forensic(science(community(there(are(the(self\serving(hired(guns,(fame(seekers,(

recluses(who(refuse(to(work(in(community(as(well(as(the(dedicated(forensic(scientists,(

forensic(technicians(and(researchers(who(care(deeply(about(justice(and(perform(their(work(

to(the(highest(ethical(standards(of(honesty,(attention(to(detail,(and(protection(from(bias.(In(

the(past,(some(TWGs(have(relied(on(group(affiliation(and/or(employment(as(the(way(to(

differentiate(between(the(dangerous(and(the(dedicated.

But the(recent(history(of(forensic(sciences(demonstrates(that(group(affiliation(and(

employment(are(not(reliable ways(to(differentiate(between these(two(types(in(the(forensic(

science(community.(Even(the(AAFS,(undoubtedly(the(premier(organization(for(forensic(

science,(has(had(expulsion(cases;(government(crime(labs(throughout(the(country(have(been(

exposed(by(whistleblowers(and(independent(re\testing.(A(vetting(procedure(that(relies(only(

on(group(affiliation(or(employment(is(blind.(The(TWG(or(Guidance(Group(that(results(from(

such(blindness(will(not(be(productive(or(credible(in(the(long(run,(and(will(not(be(protected(

from(possible(scandal.(

Three!Models!for!Vetting!Membership

Currently(there(are(three(possible(models(for(membership.(I(liken(these(to(different(kinds(

of(sieves(for(screening.

1) The(model(associated(with(ASTM(and(other(SDOs(allows in(any(one(who(is(

interested,(willing(and(pays(the(fee:(trusting(that(everyone(in(the(forensic(science(

community(has(the(best(intentions,(this(sieve(has(the(largest(possible(screen(

openings.(

2) Some(TWGs(only(allow(in(a(very(small(portion(of(interested(parties(and(disallow a(

large(portion(of(willing(and(interested(members(of(the(particular(community((see(

Appendix(II,(and(later(comments):(this(sieve(has(the(smallest(possible(screen(

openings.(

3) The(NIJ$Template(model(allows(in(only(those(who(have(proven(their(ability(to(make(

a(contribution(to(solving(a(problem(for(the(good(of(the(community(and(justice(

system,(while(disallowing(those(whose work(ethic(is(questionable. Like(a(sieve(with(

just(the(right(sized(openings,(the(NIJ$Template vetting(procedure(winnows(ethical(

and(sincere(members(of(the(forensic(science(community(from(the(self\serving.((

Getting(the(right(sieve(is(crucial(for(the(ultimate(success(and(credibility(of(the(Guidance(

Groups.(In(both(models(1(and(2,(the(credibility(of(the(group(suffers.(In(model(3,(the

credibility(of(the(group(is(enhanced.

In(the(first(model,(because(there(is(no(screening(device(for(membership,(there(are(bound(to(

be(fights(about(voting(rights(–because(voting(rights(will(substitute(for(a(membership(

vetting(procedure–(and(people(who(have(seized(official(power(can(provide(voting(rights(

based(on(allegiances(or(cliques.(A(group(cannot(be(credible(as(a(consensus\building(or(

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 32 of 337
6(

consensus\reporting(body(if(its(voting(rights(are(riddled(with(qualifiers,(excluding(portions(

of(the(entire(group.(Consensus(means(consensus(or(nothing(at(all.(

In(the(second(model,(because(the(screening(device(for(membership(is(so(tight,(there(are(

bound(to(be(fights(about(who(is(allowed(to(squeeze(into(the(group,(who(has(been(

overlooked,(and(who(meets(certain(criteria(that(do(not(have(to(do(with(expertise(or(

potential(contributions,(but(do(have(to(do(with(affiliations,(employment(or(some(other(

criteria.(A(“consensus”(group(cannot(be(credible(if(its(membership(does(not(represent(an(

entire(discipline,(as(clearly(the(“consensus”(is(just(staged.(If(such(a(group(tries(to(enforce(

one(particular(viewpoint,(sometimes(controversial,(on(an(entire(discipline,(this(will(result(

in(a(power(struggle(and(deep(resentment.(The(entire(community(will(not(“buy(in.”(

Alternatively,(the(excluded(will(rush(to(a(group(organized(along(the(first(model(where(they(

will(be(accepted,(and(then(competition(between(the(groups(will(arise(and(another(power(

struggle(occurs.

The(NIJ$Template(offers(a(vetting(procedure(that(is(moderate,(realistic,(expects(conflict(

among(disagreeing(parties(and(engages(all(stakeholders(that(can(be(affected(by(consensus(

decisions.(This vetting(procedure(uses(proven(expertise,(potential(for(contribution,(the(

telephone(conversations,(and(appropriate(but(not(overwhelming(weight(to(group(affiliation(

and(employment.(This(moderate,(realistic(and(expertise\driven(perspective(on(group(

membership(assembles(a(credible(group(since(it(includes(people(whose(prior(contributions(

to(the(particular(forensic(issue(can(be(defended,(and(who represent(a(wide(spectrum(of(the(

forensic(science(community.(

How!The!Basic!Structure!and!Vetting!Procedure!Affects!TWG!Success!and!Credibility

In(my(experience,(TWGEYEE(is(a(good(example(of(a(successful(TWG(that(followed(the(NIJ(

template(and(fulfilled(its(mission,(while(TWGDOC(is(a(good(example(of(a(problematic(TWG(

whose(planning(and(development(did(not(follow(the(NIJ(template.(

LESSONS!FROM!TWGEYEE

From(my(experience(with(TWGEYEE,(I(would(like(to(share(several(lessons(for(the(NIST(

Guidance(Groups.(

Initial!Request!and!Clear!Purpose!

TWGEYEE(came(about(because(Attorney(General(Janet(Reno(requested(that(NIJ(do(

something(in(response(to(the(accumulating(evidence(that(wrongful(convictions(were(so(

often(based(on(erroneous(eyewitness(evidence((as(shown(in(“the(green(book,”(Convicted$by$

Juries,$Exonerated$by$Science:$Case$Studies$in$the$Use$of$DNA$Evidence$to$Establish$Innocence$

After$Trial 1996).((

As(a(Federal(prosecutor(and(former(State(prosecutor,(Reno(brought(the(request(

representing((prosecutors(dealing(with(the(growing(problem(of(wrongful(conviction.(Reno’s(

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 33 of 337
7(

request(mentioned(research(in(cognitive(psychology,(some(of(which(I(was(familiar(with(due(

to(my(research(in(psycholinguistics.(This(familiarity(with(the(research(literature(led(to(my(

being(tasked(with(forming(the(Planning(Panel,(the(first(step(in(deciding(if(a(TWG(is(needed,(

its(Membership(Resource(Pool(and(its(first(agenda.(TWGEYEE(was(intended(from(the(start(

to(solve(a(problem(in(the(criminal(justice(system(by(looking(seriously(at(how(eyewitness(

identification(works(and(how(it(is(used(in(trial.(The(goal(was(to(improve(the(criminal(justice(

system(in(a(way(that(all(stakeholders(could(agree(upon,(and(find(a(way(of(operationalizing(

the(best(research(results(in(practical(and(feasible(ways(for(all(jurisdictions,(from the(

smallest(to(largest(police(departments.((

The(lesson(for(NIST(Guidance(Groups(is(that(a(successful(group(has(a(clear,(unequivocal(

purpose,(in(which(all(sectors(of(membership(can(agree(and(commit(to.(

Membership!and!Inclusivity!

TWGEYEE(was(structured(and(populated(based(on(the(NIJ(Template.(Generally,(the(vetting(

process(relied(on(demonstrated(expertise(through(publications,(conference(talks(or(years(

of(experience(in(criminal(investigation((prosecution(or(defense),(and(telephone(

conversations(with(potential(participants(for(the(Planning(Panel.(The(Planning(Panel(of(

subject(matter(experts(then(helped(NIJ(staff(determine(the(rest(of(the(Membership(

Resource(Pool(from(which(the(TWG(membership(would(eventually(come.((While(there(were(

one(or(two(academics(who(were(not(in(TWGEYEE,(this(was(due(to(budgetary(constraints.(

To(the(best(of(our(ability,(the(Membership(Resource(Pool(did(not(reflect(any(personal(

favoritism,(organizational(animus,(or(academic(rivalry,(but(it(did(reflect(different(stances.(

Due(to(inclusivity(of(stakeholders,(TWGEYEE(automatically(included(sectors(that(could(be(

antagonistic(to(each(other:(prosecutors(and(defense,(researchers(and(practitioners.(This(

cross\pollination(is(good:(the(potential(for(differing(viewpoints(produces(benefits(for(the(

forensic(science(community(and(credibility(for(the(TWG.((In(my(experience(with(TWGEYEE,(

hearing(police(interrogators(talk(about(their(usual(protocols(enabled(me(to(design(my(own(

research(in(ways(that(could(ultimately(be(useful(to(the(interviewing(and(interrogation(

process,(but(I(also(witnessed(the(way(prosecutors(and(researchers(hammered(out(the(

details(of(actually(using(sequential(rather(than(simultaneous(line\ups.(

The(lesson(for(NIST(Guidance(Groups(is(that(dissent(is(not(dangerous,(but(actually(to(be(

expected(as(part(of(the(consensus\building(process.

Funding!and!Independence!of!Members!

TWGEYEE(was(fully(funded(by(NIJ,(and(no(one(subpopulation(had(special(funding(status(or(

a(special(relationship(to(NIJ.((This(was(especially(important(because(no(one(group(could(

possibly(threaten(or(insinuate(that(only(a(particular(consensus(was(acceptable(to(the(

funding(agency.(As(an(independent(broker,(NIJ(could(not(influence(the(discussions(to(go(one(

way(or(the(other,(and(NIJ(staff’s(role(was(to(facilitate(consensus.((For(full(disclosure,(I(

played(two(roles(in(TWGEYEE:(I(was(a(subject(matter(expert(on(the(interview(

subcommittee(and(sometimes(called(into(the(identification(subcommittee(to(function(as(a(

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 34 of 337
8(

discussion(facilitator,(because(the(identification(subcommittee(had(more(controversy(and(I(

was(used(to(running(faculty(meetings(and(graduate\level(seminars(as(a(former(university(

professor).

Again,(quoting(from(the(NIJ$Template,(

The(Moderator(of(the(TWG(and(TWG(subcommittees(must(be(independent(of(the(

group's(final(outcomes,(must(not(have(a(vested(interest(in(the(group's(final(

outcomes,(and(must(serve(to(facilitate(discussion(and(communication.((

This(kind(of(evenhandedness(must(be(discerned(during(the(vetting(procedure.(In(

TWGEYEE,(we(were(fortunate(to(have(Mark(R.(Larsen,(a(prosecutor(from(King(County,(

Washington(on(both(the(Consultant(Panel(and(TWG.(His(ability(to(lead(discussion(and(keep(

the(group(on(track(was(excellent.

((

Lessons!on!Best!Practices!for!Success!in!ConsensusNBuilding!

TWGEYEE’s(discussions(were(vigorous,(often(heated,(and(conducted(with(the(ultimate(

purpose(of(improving(the(criminal(justice(system.(I(am(not(speaking(merely(in(platitudes,(

but(in(the(reality(of(the(project.(I(believe(that(this(was(possible(for(several(reasons(that(are(

actually(built(into(the(NIJ(Template.((

• First,(funding(was(independent(of(any(participant(or(subgroup.(All(participants(were(

on(equal(footing;(none(represented(a(position(that(the(funding(agency(had(a(stake(in.(

• Second,(from(the(start(the(group(included(potentially(opposing(viewpoints(

(prosecution(and(defense,(researcher(and(practitioners)(by(the(principle(of(

inclusivity.(

• Third,(there(was(an(initial,(fundamental(consensus(among(TWGEYEE(members(that(

the(problem(of(wrongful(conviction(was(real(and(worth(solving,(and(this(consensus(

of(purpose(was(stronger(than(ego\alignments(or(occupational(loyalties.(

• Fourth,(it(was(essential(to(have(independent(staff(as(well(as(TWG(members(to(

facilitate(and(moderate(discussions.((It(cannot(be(assumed(that(everyone(in(the(

group(will(have(the(skillset(to(guide(a(discussion,(especially(one(in(which(conflict(is(

inevitable.((

TWGEYEE(was(a(successful(group(that(fulfilled(its(purpose(and(has(had(a(sustained(impact(

on(the(criminal(justice(system.(Jurisdictions(throughout(the(United(States have(adopted(

scientifically\validated(methods(for(line\ups(and(interview/interrogation(methods(based(

on(principles(of(human(memory.(Training(curricula(have(been(developed(and(deployed(

across(the(United(States.(

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 35 of 337
9(

LESSONS!FROM!TWGDOC

From(my(experience(with(TWGDOC,(I(would(like(to(share(several(lessons(for(the(NIST(

Guidance(Groups.(These(lessons(provide(a(contrast(to(TWGEYEE,(with(the(exception(that(

TWGDOC(discussions,(especially(among(Federal(document(examiners(from(different(labs,(

were(also(often(heated.

Initial!Requests!and!Mixed!Purposes!

TWGDOC’s(origins(are(a(bit(complex.(Crime(lab(directors(first(approached(Dr.(Rau(after(the(

Starzecpyzel(ruling(because(they(feared(that(a(unit(of(the(labs(would(lose(admissibility(and(

eventually(become(non\productive.(Dr.(Rau(asked(me(to(look(into(the(problem(because(my(

work(in(forensic(linguistics(overlaps(with(forensic(document(examination(via(

authentication(of(documents(and(author/writer(identification.(It(is(important(to(note(that(

the(request(did(not(come(from(the(forensic(document(examination((FDE)(community(per$se,(

but(from(crime(lab(management.((The(crime(lab(directors(were(concerned(about(facing(the(

Daubert(challenge((without(an(adequate(body(of(research(into(the(fundamentals(and(

accuracy(of(handwriting(identification.(

In(response(to(this(request,(I(organized(a(workshop(which(was(held(in(the(summer(of(1996.(

This(workshop(was(fairly(inclusive,(bringing(together(document(examiners(from(Federal(

and(State(crime(labs,(a(Federal(prosecutor,(and(researchers(in(fields(that(could(engage(in(

basic(research(relevant(to(handwriting(identification,(including(neurology,(computer(vision,(

pattern(recognition((not(pattern(perception(but(the(subfield(of(machine(learning),(

linguistics,(statistics(and(the(NIST(UniPen(Project.((For(full(disclosure,(I(was(not(the(only(

linguist(invited(to(the(workshop(but(I(was(the(only(one(who(attended).((The(workshop(was(

a(good(mix(of(practitioners(and(researchers(who(could(address(the(fundamental(issue(of(

meeting(the(Daubert(challenge,(as(outlined(by(the(crime(lab(directors.((However,(at(this(

meeting(I(realized(that(the(document(examiners(were(more(focused(on(expedient(ways(of(

getting(admissibility,(such(as(proficiency(testing,(than(on(fundamental(research(validating(

basic(assumptions(in(the(field.(This(difference(in(purpose(played(a(role(in(how(the(TWG(was(

eventually(developed(and(managed.(The(point(is(that(the(community(related(to(forensic(

document(examination(did(not(have(a(united(purpose.(

In(December(of(1996,(I(convened(a(meeting(of(document(examiners(representing(Federal(

labs,(held(at(NIST(OLES,(to(discuss(the(next(step.(At(that(meeting,(in(discussing(possible(

options((conference,(research(solicitation,(TWG),(it(was(suggested(by(an(FBI(representative(

that(a(TWG(should(be(formed.(Afterwards,(I(discussed(this(possibility(with(Richard(Stanko,(

the(director(of(the(QD(Unit(at(the(FBI(Lab(in(DC,(and(he(agreed.(

In(retrospect,(I(see(that(the(visions(of(the(NIJ(Template(and(the(FBI\sponsored(TWGs(were(

not(really(compatible.((I(am(attaching(a(letter(from(the(American(Board(of(Forensic(

Document(Examiners,(dated(May(5,(1998,(that(illustrates(the(tension(and(difficulty(that(

TWGDOC(encountered(due(to(the(difference(in(vision(between(NIJ(and(the(FBI((see(

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 36 of 337
10

Appendix(II).((The(lessons(originating(in(this(different(vision(for(technical(working(groups(

are(detailed(below.

Exclusivity!and!Membership!

One(of(the(major(differences(between(the(NIJ(and(FBI(approaches(was(inclusivity.(NIJ(

wanted(to(include(researchers(and(other(stakeholders(in(TWGDOC,(as(well(as(a(broad(

representation(of(document(examiners,(including(the(private(sector(and(researchers.((The(

FBI(wanted(to(include(only(Federal(examiners(and(one(FBI\funded(researcher,(Prof.(Moshe(

Kam.(Through(Kathleen(Mills(with(whom(I(worked(to(help(plan(TWGDOC,(the(FBI(was(

persuaded(to(include(State(and(local(examiners(as(well(as(representatives(from(

organizations(such(as(AAFS.(The(AAFS(representative(turned(out(to(be(a(private(examiner,(

Linda(Hart whose(leadership(was(noted(by(everyone(in(the(original(group.(Eventually,(

other(private(sector(examiners(created(a(coalition,(insisted(upon(being(included(and(were.(

So(much(energy(was(spent(on(the(issue(of(excluding(certain(groups.(

Current(membership(in(TWGDOC(still(excludes(a(portion(of(the(private(sector(such(as(

Diplomates(of(the(Board(of(Forensic(Document(Examiners((BFDE)(and(members(of(the(

Association(of(Forensic(Document(Examiners((AFDE);(for(full(disclosure,(in(2012(I(accepted(

an(invitation(to(join the(Board(of(BFDE(to(serve(as(an(appointed(director,(and(started(in(

2013.(BFDE(was(the(first(forensic(document(examination(certification(board(to(be(

accredited(by(the(Forensic(Specialties(Accreditation(Board((FSAB)(and(its(certification(

testing(was(developed(with(and(is(administered(by(Dr.(Steve(Clark(of(Occupational(

Research(and(Assessment.(AFDE(has(been(open(to(research(in(the(field(of(handwriting(as(

associated(with(different(American(and(European(research(teams(since(the(early(1990’s.(

However,(BFDE\diplomates(and(AFDE(members(are(excluded(from(serving(on(SWGDOC(on(

the(basis(of(full\time(vs.(part\time(apprenticeship(training;(only(full\time(apprenticeship(

training(is(accepted(by(SWGDOC,(while(many(BFDE\diplomates(and(AFDE(members(have(

been(trained(in(part\time(apprenticeships(over(several(years(with a(qualified(expert(in(the(

field.

Currently,(SWGDOC’s(bylaws(state(that(“non\forensic(science(practitioners(such(as(

academics,(researchers,(statisticians(and(legal(representatives”(can(be(approved(for(

membership(by(the(Membership(Committee.(However,(SWGDOC(has(not(included(any(

researcher(since(2005 (according(to(the(last(available(documentation(available(on(the(

web),(and(I(resigned(in 1999(of(my(own(accord.(I(resigned(from(TWGDOC(because(I(felt(that(

the(standards(being(developed(were(a(dangerous(case(of(“the(cart(before(the(horse.”(I(felt(

that(the(protocols(were(actually(laying(the(field(open(to(an(extremely(damaging(Daubert(

challenge(because(the(protocols(were(so(unfounded(by(validation(testing(or(other(research

and(exposed(a(pervasive(subjectivity(and(potential(for(bias(in(decision\making(especially(

for(writer(identification.(Fortunately,(before(I(resigned,(I(was(still(able(to(serve(the(forensic(

document(examination(community(in(another(way,(as(mentioned(later,(beyond(TWGDOC.(

There(are(three(lessons(for(NIST(on(this(topic(of(membership,(having(to(do(with(the(private(

sector,(researchers,(and(credibility.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 37 of 337
11

The!Private!Sector!

Inclusivity(means(that(the(private(sector(as(well(as(government(employees(should(be(fairly(

represented(in(the(Guidance(Groups.(Representatives(from(the(private(sector(should(not(be(

restricted(to(those(individuals(who(entered(private(sector(after(retiring(from(employment(

in(the(public(sector,(or(to(government(employees(who(moonlight(in(the(private(sector,(or(to(

those(individuals(who(hold(memberships(in(professional(organizations(made(up(almost(

exclusively(of(current(or(former(government(employees.((The(inclusion of(members(

representing(all(relevant(private(sector(stakeholder(interests(is(increasingly(important(for(

several(reasons.(

First,(in(some(jurisdictions,(crime(labs(have(actually(shut(down,(and(both(prosecutors(and(

defense(must(use(private(sector(forensic(science(practitioners.(In(Georgia,(for(instance,(

there(are(sections(of(the(state(where(no(crime(lab(has(a(questioned(document((QD)(

examiner,(so(all(QD(work(has(to(be(performed(by(examiners(in(the(private(sector.(Having(

truly(representative(private(sector(input(supports(the(interests(of(justice,(not(merely(the(

interests(of(law(enforcement.(If(the(private(sector(is(not(fairly(represented(in(the(guidance(

groups,(any(standards(developed(by(such(underrepresented(groups(will(lack credibility(and(

consensus(support.(Private(sector(input(cannot(be(almost(exclusively(derived(from(retired(

government(employees(or(active(government(employees(who(are(allowed(to(“moonlight”(

and(accept(casework(in(the(private(sector.(Government(stakeholder(interests(cannot(be(

seen(as(monopolizing(the(guidance(groups,(and(in(particular,(the(consensus(standards(

development(process.((((

One(of(the(strengths(of(our(criminal(justice(system(is(the(ability(to(present(a(strong(defense,(

and(any(forensic(science(guidance(group(therefore(requires(meaningful(input(from(those(

forensic(science(practitioners((who( provide(the(majority(of(expertise(to(the(defense.(

Finally,(in(some(forensic(disciplines,(the(private(sector(has(contributed(significant(

advancements(to(methods(and(empirical(standards(in(ways(that(crime(lab(employees(have(

not(been(able(to(do.(Crime(lab(employees(typically(do(not(have(the(time(or(budgets(to(

undertake(method(validation(projects,(whereas(corporations,(universities(and(think(tanks(

do.((

Researchers

Additionally,(I(believe(that(researchers(should(automatically(be(included(in(the(Guidance(

Groups.(Forensic(science(researchers(are(found(in(academia,(industry(think(tanks(and(

corporate(research(and(development(workgroups.(Researchers(should(be(involved(for(

complementary(reasons(and(mutual(benefit.((

Putting(researchers(and(practitioners(in(the(same(discussion(group(benefits(the(

researchers(as(they(discover(the(concerns(of(people(who(might(eventually(use(the(research.(

Inclusivity(enables(practitioners(to(ask questions(and(show(the(researchers(how(far(the(

laboratory(research(is(from(real(life(situations.(Researchers(can(produce(better,(more(

realistic(research(studies(when(they(hear(the(concerns(of(the(eventual(end\users.((

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 38 of 337
12

Practitioners(are(also(benefited(as(they(hear(researchers(explain(their(own(research(

results,(answer(questions(and(even(disagree(with(each(other.(Practitioners(learn(that(

science(is(fluid(and(probabilistic(and(cannot(always(be(set(in(stone(for(every(situation.(This(

fact(of(science(can(make(the(standard\setting(consensus(difficult,(but(far(more(realistic(than(

if(practitioners(alone(set(standards(based(on(a(practice(that(is(common(in(a(crime(lab.(((

As(a(researcher,(I(personally(found(this(to(be(true(in(my(experience(with(TWGDOC.(

Learning(about(the(issues(from(document(examiners(enabled(me(to(make(a(strong(case(to(

Dr.(David(Boyd,(NIJ’s(Director(of(the(Office(of(Science(and(Technology,(for(research(funding(

in(forensic(document(examination;(see(for(instance(the(first(solicitation(for(research(in(

validating(handwriting(identification(I(authored(as(a(means(of(providing(some(support(to(

the(forensic(document(community(https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/sl297.txt(.(Some(of(the(

research(that(NIJ(funded(in(FDE(has(been(crucial(in(helping(the(field(retain(admissibility(

and(win(Daubert(challenges.((Note(that(this(funding(solicitation(did(not(arise(out(of(

TWGDOC,(but(because(NIJ(was(able(to(provide(support(for(the(community(outside(of(

TWGDOC.

Reduced!Credibility!Due!to!Exclusivity!

Since(TWGDOC(has(always(held(to(an(exclusive(membership,(its(credibility(as(a(true(

consensus\building(group(has(been(reduced.(Consensus(can(barely(be(said(to(exist(when(

the(only(people(allowed(in(the(group(are(those(whose(doctrine(is(already(blessed(by(the(

powers\that\be.(Dissenting(voices(are(not(heard(if(the(membership(and(vetting(procedure(

is(based(on(exclusion.

For(NIJ,(the(purpose(of(TWGDOC(was(to(determine(ways(of(meeting(the(Daubert(challenge,(

first(by(operationalizing(protocols,(even(if(that(meant(suggesting(changes(to(some(

commonly(used(protocols,(and(identifying(research(gaps.(However,(as(I(regularly(attended(

meetings(for(the(first(two(years,(it(became(very(clear(to(me(that(the(real(purpose(of(

TWGDOC(was(to(create(standards(based(on(one(Federal(laboratory’s(common(practices,(

even(if(the(issue(was(untested,(unvalidated(and(unresearched.((For(example,(one(of(the(

most(controversial(issues,(having(to(do(with(training(requirements,(has(never(been(

researched(to(discover(if(full\time(training(is(really(superior(to(part\time(training.(Basing(a(

forensic(discipline’s(membership(on(this(issue(would(be(like(the(American(Bar(Association(

not(allowing(attorneys(who(attended(law(school(part\time(to(join(the(association,(or(State(

Bar(Associations(not(admitting(lawyers(who(attended(law(school(part\time,(regardless(of(

their(passing(the(bar(exam.(The(fact(that(SWGDOC(continues(its(exclusive(membership(

criteria(strains(the(perception(that(it(can(truly(function(to(report,(much(less(build,(

consensus.

The(issue(of(membership(has(even(affected(the(ASTM(E30.02(Committee(on(Questioned(

Documents.(As(mentioned(earlier,(the(ASTM(E30(Committee(offers(membership(to(those(

who(are(interested(and(willing.(This(“wide(door”(approach(has(worked(well(for(many(

forensic(disciplines(under(the(E30(umbrella.(It(is(well(known(that(a(dispute(in(E30.02(broke(

out(over(who(was(allowed(to(vote(when(voting(became(restricted(under(a(classification(

system(enacted(in(2005.((Salaried(government(examiners(and(private(examiners(were(

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 39 of 337
13

supposed(to(have(equal(voting(power(to(maintain(balance,(until(the(government(examiners(

moonlighting(in(the(private(sector(were(allowed(to(choose(whether(they(wanted(to(vote(as(

a(government(employee(or(a(private(examiner.(Election(to(vote(as(a(private(examiner(was(

known(to(displace(the(voting(rights(of(full\time(document(examiners(in(private(practice;(

this(created(an(imbalance(in(representation(and(also(effectively(took(away(private(sector(

input. Eventually,(E30.02(was(disbanded(due(to(the(voting(controversy(before(some(

standards(could(be(voted(on.(All(of(the(sordid(details(of(these(events(have(been(

documented(elsewhere(by(others(who(were(directly(involved.(

My(point(\\the(lesson(for(NIST(\\(is(that(a(policy(of(exclusive(membership(can(derail(the(

entire(process(and(certainly(discredit(the(group(by(allowing(it(to(become(so(politicized(that(

it(would(“cut(off(its(nose(to(spite(its(face.”(

Funding and!Credibility

The(funding(of(TWGDOC(was(an(issue(between(NIJ(and(the(FBI;(it(was(far(beyond(my(

responsibilities(as(a(Visiting(Fellow.(However,(funding(clearly(played(a(role(in(how(the(TWG(

was(developed(and(eventually(managed,(and(the(FBI(became(the(primary(funding(agency.((

The(fact(that(the(funding(agency(was(allowed(to populate((the(TWG(with(its(preferred((

subject(matter(experts(was,(in(my(opinion,(not(a(good(idea.(When(the(funding(agency(has(

unchecked(power(in(the(selection(of(subject(matter(representatives(on(the(TWG,(there(is(

always(the(underlying(sense(or(dreaded(possibility(that(the(money(will(be(withdrawn(if(the(

funding(agency’s(subject(matter(experts(do(not(produce(the(“desired”(consensus.(The(group(

consensus(should(not(be(bought(or(in(any(way(even(appear(to(be(bought(by(the(funding(

agency.(Even(the(appearance(of(impropriety(based(on(a(funding(agency’s(domination(of(a(

group(undermines(the(credibility(of(the(group(and(any(so\called(consensus(reached(by(the(

group.(Again,(documented(discussions(in(ASTM(E30.02(show(how(far(and(deep(the(funding(

agency’s(influence(can(become(on(the(standards\creation(process.(It(would(be(far(cheaper(

and(time\consuming,(and(more(direct,(if(a(funding(agency(just(set(out(its(rules(and(

regulations(and(implored(everyone(to(obey rather(than(create(a(group(whose(credibility(is(

suspect(due(to(its(relationship(to(the(funding(agency.((

The(lesson(for(NIST(Guidance(Groups(is(that(the(funding(agency(should(be(independent(of(

the(subject(matter(experts,(i.e.(the(subject(matter(experts(should(not(be(salaried(employees(

of(any(agency(involved(with(funding(the(Guidance(Group. While(NIST(staff(scientists(can(

and(should(contribute(expertise(to(the(planning(of(the(groups,(and(should(be(called(on(for(

specific(reports(regarding(the(status(of(research(in(a(field,(due(to(this(experience(with(

TWGDOC,(I(would(suggest(that(even(NIST(staff(scientists(remain(independent(especially(of(

the(standard\development(function(of(the(Guidance(Groups.((

I(know(and(personally(respect(several(NIST(staff(scientists,(but(there(now(–at(least(for(some(

time–(has(to(be(a(complete(independence(of(consensus\groups(from(funding(agencies(in(

order(to(restore(the(credibility(that(has(been(severely(damaged(by(the(lack(of(

independence.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 40 of 337
14

A!Final!Note!on!Funding!

In(the(NIJ(Template,(technical(working(groups(develop(in(response(to(a(specific(need(and(

they(are(funded(to(address(the(need.(I(think(this(is(a(wise(funding(strategy(that(NIST(should(

seriously(consider.

If(Guidance(Groups(are(designed(to(solve(a(problem,(they(do(not(last(forever.(I(do(not(

believe(that(Guidance(Groups(should(last(indefinitely,(but(that,(like(TWGEYEE,(they(should(

meet(for(specific(purposes,(fulfill(their(mission,(produce(a(work(product(with(lasting(value,(

and(then(be(dissolved(or(cease(meeting(until(the(community(articulates(another(issue(to(be(

resolved.(There(is(no(guarantee(that(the(expertise(to(resolve(one(issue(will(automatically(be(

obtained(from(an(earlier(assemblage;(it(is(highly(likely(that(a(new(community\articulated(

issue(will(require(different(group(members(with(the(requisite(expertise.(

Further,(electronic(meetings(have(surpassed(what(was(available(in(the(1990’s(when(I(was(

involved(in(TWGEYEE(and(TWGDOC.(Certainly,(these(technologies(can(be(exploited(to(

reduce(the(funding(of(Guidance(Groups.(NIST(already(uses(such(discussion(methods.(I(have(

participated(telephonically(in(biometric(standards(development(for(voice,(and(while(it(is(

not(as(much(fun(as(meeting(in(person,(it(certainly(allowed(me(to(participate(given(my(travel(

schedule.

Finally,(I(wish(NIST,(and(Sue(Ballou(in(particular,(all(the(best(of(success(in(guiding(the(

Guidance(Groups,(a(mechanism(that(can(support(and(improve(the(criminal(justice(system(in(

many(ways.(I(am(grateful(for(my(participation(in(technical(working(groups(and(the(process(

of(developing(them,(and(I(hope(and(expect(that(Sue(will(say(that(some(day(too.(If(I(can(be(of(

any(service(beyond(my(thoughts(and(advice(relayed(in(this(paper,(I(am(willing.(

Appendices

I(–(NIJ(Template(for(Developing(Technical(Working(Groups(

II(–(Letter(from(ABFDE(President(Howard(Riles(to(TWGDOC(

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 41 of 337
NIJ'S Template

for the Development of Technical Working Groups

Dr. Carole E. Chaski, Visiting Fellow

Dr. Richard M. Rau, Forensic Science Program Manager

National Institute of Justice

The Mission of NIJ's Office of Science and Technology 

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), within the Office of 

Justice Programs, is the research and development agency of the 

U.S. Department of Justice. The mission of NIJ's Office of 

Science and Technology is, in part, to provide state and local 

law enforcement and corrections agencies access to the best 

technologies available and help them develop capabilities 

essential to the improvement of efficiency and effectiveness in 

every aspect of the criminal justice system. In line with this 

mission, "the Institute actively solicits the views of criminal 

justice professionals and researchers in the continuing search 

for answers that inform policymaking in crime and justice," 

(quoted from NIJ's web page at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/about.htm

). Naturally, given our mission, the principles of (1) service 

to state and local criminal justice agencies and (2) active 

involvement with the criminal justice community have molded the 

way we approach the task of developing a Technical Working Group 

(TWG, pronounced "twig"). 

The Purpose of TWGS 

Technical Working Groups (TWGs) consist of practitioners and 

researchers who focus on issues within a particular discipline 

for the purposes of determining the best practices and tools 

available, standardizing procedures, and informing long-range 

policy. With these multiple purposes, TWGS can function to 

guide an established discipline, such as the FBI's Technical 

Working Group on DNA Analytical Methods (TWGDAM) has done, or to 

solve critical problems during a discipline's turbulent period, 

such as the FBI's Technical Working Group on Documents (TWGDOC). 

In recent years, NIJ's Office of Science and Technology has 

developed technical working groups which deal with issues within 

forensic science, such as The National Commission on the Future 

of DNA which was initiated in 1997, and the Technical Working 

Group on Death Investigation (TWGDI) which has recently 

completed the National Guidelines for Medicolegal Death 

Investigations. This article describes the template for 

developing NIJ-sponsored TWGS.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 42 of 337
NIJ's TWG Template

The flow chart in Figure 1 shows the essential components 

of the TWG Template, and can be followed sequentially. First, 

NIJ receives a request from the criminal justice community to 

form a TWG. This request triggers the entire TWG-development 

process. NIJ does not create TWGs in a vacuum; the development 

of TWGs is driven by a community-articulated issue. Second, in 

response to this request, NIJ Staff (or contractor) researches 

the issues behind the request. This preliminary research may 

include:

a. what are the most important research findings to date;

b. who are the researchers working in this topic area;

c. what are the current technologies related to this topic

area;

d. who are the developers and/or marketers of these

technologies; 

e. what practitioner-based organizations concerned with the

topic area are operating at the national, state and local 

levels;

f. who are the current officers of these organizations.

This research enables NIJ to assemble a TWG Consultant Panel 

consisting of three or four experts in the field.

Third, the TWG Consultant Panel reviews the NIJ Staff's 

initial research and insures that the research into the issue, 

major players, organizations, technologies, etc. is both 

complete and accurate. A most important function of the TWG 

Consultant Panel is to help NIJ decide whether a TWG or some 

other NIJ function is appropriate for the issue at hand. For 

example, it may be that the community-based request may be 

answered most effectively by a conference, or a directed 

solicitation for grant proposals. If the Consultant Panel 

advises NIJ not to develop a TWG for this issue, one of these 

other functions can be initiated. If, on the other hand, the 

TWG Consultant Panel does recommend a TWG, NIJ Staff moves into 

the planning phase. 

The fourth step, or planning phase, involves funding, 

drafting the agenda, and determining the size and composition of 

the TWG. In the TWG template, the funding commitment is made at 

the start of the process. Funding is the most essential part of 

the planning phase, because all the other planning activities 

will be, at least in part, determined by funding. Since 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 43 of 337
budgetary decisions are made annually, the funding will affect 

the scope of the first year's agenda as well as the size and 

composition of the membership. 

Based on earlier discussions with the TWG Consultant Panel, 

NIJ Staff drafts an agenda of issues for the TWG. The draft 

plays an important role in determining the necessary expertise 

and composition of the membership. If, for instance, the draft 

contains primarily issues regarding admissibility of evidence, 

legal expertise is required and the membership should be 

composed of prosecutors, defense attorneys, judiciary as well as 

crime scene investigators who gather the evidence and forensic 

scientists who produce and explain analytical results. 

The fifth step, or nomination phase, begins when the 

Director of NIJ sends requests nominations for membership in the 

TWG from the Membership Resource Pool. 

The sixth component of the TWG template is the Membership 

Resource Pool. The Membership Resource Pool is an essential part 

of the TWG template because it reflects NIJ's mission of 

providing state and local criminal justice systems with access 

to the best technologies and active involvement with the 

criminal justice community. Even more importantly, the 

Membership Resource Pool enables NIJ's TWGs to be representative 

of all regions within the United States, of all segments of a 

discipline, and of local, State and Federal parts of the 

criminal justice system. 

The Membership Resource Pool consists of all national, 

regional, state and local organizations which are related by 

discipline to the community-articulated issue of the TWG, 

researchers within the discipline, and any private sector 

entities within the discipline. When NIJ's Director requests 

nominations from the Membership Resource Pool, he specifies 

three criteria to be met by the nominees. These three criteria 

are, first, that the nominees should represent a specific 

regional distribution; second, the the nominees should have the 

specific expertise needed for the TWG's tasks; and third, that 

the nominees should be available and committed to active 

participation in the TWG, including the attendance of meetings 

and writing of reports. We ask that the organizations select at 

least two candidates.

After NIJ receives nominations of candidates from the 

Membership Resource Pool, the seventh step is for NIJ's Director 

to send letters of invitation to the nominees. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 44 of 337
The eighth step, when NIJ receives written commitments from 

nominees, reflects the active participation which is required of 

each TWG member. Nominees must be serious enough about their 

role on the TWG to make this commitment on paper.

The ninth step is the forming of the TWG based on written 

responses. All those who accept the responsibility of serving on 

the TWG are included. If there are gaps in regional 

representation, or a particular type of expertise, because some 

nominees have declined to participate in the TWG, we return to 

the seventh step, with the NIJ Director sending letters of 

invitation to alternate candidates from specific organizations. 

When written acceptances are received, these candidates are 

automatically included in the TWG.

The tenth step requires that the NIJ Staff arrange the 

first meeting and send the draft agenda to the TWG members. 

After the first meeting, the TWG itself will be responsible for 

organizing its meetings, in line with the NIJ budget and the 

following general principles.

General Principles for Operating TWGs

1. The Moderator of the TWG and TWG subcommittees must be

independent of the group's final outcomes, must not have a 

vested interest in the group's final outcomes, and must serve to 

facilitate discussion and communication. 

2. The Composition of the TWG and any of the subcommittees which

it determines to create must reflect both research and practice.

3. The Composition of the TWG must reflect Federal, state and

local perspectives on the topic area. (If the issue is not a 

Federal issue, then representatives of federal agencies need not 

be included).

4. The group's decisions must be based on consensus of the

group. These decisions will most likely affect the entire 

discipline represented by the TWG and must therefore reflect the 

consensus of the entire discipline.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 45 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 46 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 47 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 48 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 49 of 337
Response from David Coffman 

Page%1 of%4

1. Structure of the Guidance Groups

Given the scope and principles of the Guidance Groups (GG) one of the structural models that 

could best support the GGs is as follows: As%a%former%member%of%the%Technical%and%then%

Scientific%Working%Group%for%many%years%(TWGDAM/SWGDAM)%I%think%we%saw%the%group%evolve%

from%all%bench%scientists%performing%the%analysis%to%members%of%management.%%As%membership%

shifted,%where%the%majority%was%actually%people%holding%management%positions,%their%priorities%

changed%and%their%up%to%date%knowledge%of%the%trends%in%the%specific%discipline%began%to%

wane.%%Based%on%this%observation%I%believe%the%majority%of%the%membership%should%always%be%

individuals%currently%performing%the%testing%and%or%technical%leaders/researches%in%the%scientific%

discipline.%I%think%lab%directors%and%members%of%the%legal%community%would%provide%useful%and%

valuable%perspectives%but%this%definitely%needs%to%be%a%minority%portion%of%the%overall%makeup%of%

the%group.%%

o The GGs should have a voting group of 15-25 participants, depending on the

forensic discipline

! The voting group is responsible for reporting GG business to the NIST 

representative(s) 

! Voting Group membership: 

! Practitioner: This position must be clearly defined as a case 

working analyst/examiner which excludes individuals retired from 

the laboratory or those no longer reporting casework results. 

! At least 50% of the Voting Group should be practitioners 

! Federal/State/Local laboratories represented 

! Geographical representation 

! The practitioners should not all be from the major 

metropolitan areas or the most populated states

! Statistician: must be knowledgeable and currently using the skill 

set associated with this role 

! Researcher: This must be clearly defined as an individual who is 

directly involved in the research pertinent to the GG objectives. If 

there has been a grant awarded to a researcher to conduct research 

directly associated with a GG’s goals and objectives, they should 

be considered for the Voting Group or an Invited Guest for the 

specific GG Working Group. 

! Academician: This is an individual who has a position at a college 

or university and has the essential skill sets necessary to contribute 

the GG’s goals and objectives. This individual may also be a 

researcher. 

! Quality Assurance Manager: An individual who spends at 

minimum 50% of their time performing quality assurance (QA) 

related tasks. The QA Manager provides accreditation support for 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 50 of 337
Response from David Coffman 

Page%2 of%4

the disciplines including compliance with ISO and Supplemental 

standards. 

! The Voting Group should NOT allow membership from: 

! Private vendors, although there may be instances where an 

individual from a private vendor may be an Invited Guest 

! Retired practitioners, such as Crime Laboratory Directors 

unless the individual is still maintaining proficiency in their 

discipline. 

! Center of Excellence staff 

! Judicial advocates are not necessary at this level 

o Invited Guests

! Should be considered for relevant agenda-specific presentations 

! Potential for membership to GG Working Groups and ad hoc groups 

o Anticipated GG agenda template:

! Meeting 

! Day 1: 

! Travel, where necessary additional meeting time for 

Working/Ad Hoc Groups 

! Not open to the public 

! DAY 2: 

! Invited Guest presentations, “old business” as appropriate 

! Allow timed public comment with prior approval for 

speaker(s) 

! Open to the public 

! Day 3: 

! Working Group/Ad Hoc Group Break-out 

! Conduct work-product business 

! Not open to the public 

! Day 4: 

! Working/Ad Hoc Group present up-date report to the 

Voting Group 

! Open to the public 

! Close-out before 1:00pm 

• Facilitating the sharing of best and uniform practices across the GGs could be

accomplished through

o Mandates

! GG Charters with by-laws included but not limited to: 

! Term Limits for Chairs, Vice-Chairs, Secretary positions 

! Does not disqualify individuals in these positions for the 

general Voting Group once tenure is expired 

! Robert’s Rules of Order implemented for GG control 

! Voting Group Membership policy 

! Invited Guest policy 

! Mandated meeting schedules (2ce/year?) 

! Transparency policy 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 51 of 337
Response from David Coffman 

Page%3 of%4

! Location of meetings 

! Budgeting for meetings 

! Charter amendment policy 

! Agendas available prior to meetings 

o Site-specific website in which all GGs post

! GG Voting Group Member information 

! GG Working Groups/Ad Hoc group member information 

! Items requesting public comment (not pre-work product) 

! GG specific public or laboratory-specific surveys 

! Agendas with pertinent date(s) 

! Application to give a public comment at a meeting 

! FAQ site for each GG 

• Successful forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) have the following attributes

which may be drawn upon for the formation of the GGs: 

o A Charter

o Enforceable standards

o Definitive timelines for Working Group/Ad Hoc Group tasks

o Relationship with academics, researchers, statisticians and forensic laboratories

• Best practices may be found in several current SWGs that may be drawn upon for the

GGs. Using DNA as an example, SWGDAM has

o All of the attributes delineated above

o Public website with all pertinent documents published

o The website is updated and maintained

o Agendas are available to the public

o Mission statement is published

o Encourage public comment for ensuing standards or recommendations

• Regarding a potential partnership with a standards development organization (SDO) in

which the standard is issued by the SDO: These standards are usually consensus

standards and not necessarily forensic discipline specific. The standard may be more

practical than scientific. However, the SDO may offer expertise in the design and

development of a standard which would benefit the GG

• A GG fee-based membership model run through a not-for-profit organization may not

present a significant obstacle for participation but the concern is:

o Laboratories who can afford the membership may not be the best practitioner

representatives.

o Non-forensic members may not be able to afford membership and it would be

difficult to complete the membership composite requirements.

o A tiered fee-based system does not seem feasible.

• Long term governance, defined as administration and coordination of the GG, by a

privatized model does not seem feasible and may have the same issues as a not-for-profit.

This is not a trivial issue as the credibility or generation of the GG’s work product could

be affected by governance by a private entity, for example, if there were connections to

vendors by the private vendor or if membership dues were increased.

2. Impact of Guidance Groups

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 52 of 337
Response from David Coffman 

Page%4 of%4

• The GGs cannot mandate the adoption of standards but they can request accreditation

bodies such as ASCLD-LAB, FQS and A2LA to adopt the standards as a supplemental to

the ISO standards.

o NOTE: Without membership and transparency it would be very difficult to adopt

the standards at the state and local level. The following are considerations

regarding the adoption of GG standards:

! May withhold federal grant monies if the State and Local level did not 

comply 

! Will not have access to federal databases 

! Courts may not accept testimony 

! Accreditation may be withheld 

• The GGs should engage the professional organizations such as AAFS, IAI, AFTE, SOFT

and NAME to coordinate and consolidate potential policies, standards and research 

opportunities. 

• GGs may positively impact the certification process by forging a relationship with

certification bodies to provide relevant questions. 

• NIST researchers can engage with the GGs by being a source of individuals that the GGs

can reach out to for additional work to be done on the topics of in question. 

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups

• The stakeholders are described above in Voting Group and Invited Guests.

o NIST should be certain the right practitioners are part of the GGs.

! Longevity should not be a consideration 

o Balanced representation means that all of the criteria necessary to design and

generate standards and policies are addressed by subject matter experts who are 

active members of the GGs. 

• Engaging organizations to play a role in forensic science, standards development and

practice will occur by allowing public comment, invited lectureships and GG Working 

Group/Ad Hoc Group participation. 

• There should be an application and culling process in place for individuals interested in

invited lectureships or being an Invited Guest member in the Working Groups/Ad Hoc 

Groups. 

• The Federal government must be able to appropriately fund all activities associated with

the GGs. 

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups

• All Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) should transition to GGs

• There should be a cross-disciplinary functional approach (i.e. statistical analysis) for the

GGs in order to share common issues. For example, GGs should share methodologies for

statistical analysis such as uncertainty of measurement and documenting regarding

traceability compliance.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 53 of 337
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

“Liberty’s Last Champion” TM

wwwƁnacdlƁorg

President

Jerry J. Cox Mount Vernon, KY

President-Elect

Theodore Simon Philadelphia, PA

First Vice President

E. G. Morris Austin, TX

Second Vice President

Barry J. Pollack Washington, DC

Treasurer

John Wesley Hall Little Rock, AR

Secretary

Rick Jones New York, NY

Immediate Past President

Steven D. Benjamin Richmond, VA

Parliamentarian

George H. Newman Philadelphia, PA

Directors

Christopher W. Adams Charleston, SC

Brian H. Bieber Coral Gables, FL

Andrew S. Birrell Minneapolis, MN

Susan K. Bozorgi Miami, FL

Ellen C. Brotman Philadelphia, PA

William H. Buckman Moorestown, NJ

Alexander Bunin Houston, TX

Jean-Jacques Cabou Phoenix, AZ

Maureen A. Cain Denver, CO

Anthony Cotton Waukesha, WI

Aric M. Cramer St. George, UT

Candace Crouse Cincinnati, OH

Ramon de la Cabada Miami, FL

Paul B. DeWolfe Baltimore, MD 

Drew Findling Atlanta, GA

Richard K. Gilbert Washington, DC

Nina J. Ginsberg Alexandria, VA

Elissa B. Heinrichs Newtown, PA

Michael P. Heiskell Fort Worth, TX

Paula Henderson Knoxville, TN

Bonnie Hoffman Leesburg, VA

Stephen Ross Johnson Knoxville, TN

Ashish S. Joshi Ann Arbor, MI

Elizabeth Kelley Spokane, WA

Nellie L. King West Palm Beach, FL

Benjamin R. LaBranche Baton Rouge, LA

Tracy A. Miner Boston, MA

Tyrone C. Moncriffe Houston, TX

Norman R. Mueller Denver, CO

Melinda M. Sarafa New York, NY

David B. Smith Alexandria, VA

Kristina W. Supler Cleveland, OH

Jeffrey E. Thoma Fairfield, CA

CeCelia Valentine Phoenix, AZ

Geneva Vanderhorst Washington, DC

Christopher A. Wellborn Rock Hill, SC

Steven M. Wells Anchorage, AK

Christie N. Williams Austin, TX

William P. Wolf Chicago, IL

Executive Director

Norman L. Reimer Washington, DC

Jerry J. Cox

President

Law Office of Jerry J. Cox PSC | PO Box 1350, Mount Vernon, KY 40456 | Phone 606-256-5111 | 1660 L Street, NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 | Phone 202-872-8600 | Fax 202-872-8690 Fax 606-256-2036 | E-mail assist@nacdl.org | E-mail jcox@kih.net

November 7, 2013 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

c/o Susan Ballou 

100 Bureau Drive, Mailstop 8102 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Dear Ms. Ballou, 

Please accept this letter as the National Association of Criminal Defense 

Lawyers’ comments on the formation and composition of Guidance 

Groups. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 

(NACDL) is a nonprofit voluntary professional bar association that works 

on behalf of criminal defense attorneys to ensure justice and due process 

for those accused of crime or misconduct. NACDL was founded in 1958. 

It has a nationwide membership of approximately 10,000 direct members 

in 28 countries, and 90 state, provincial and local affiliate organizations 

totaling 40,000 attorneys. NACDL’s members include private criminal 

defense lawyers, public defenders, military defense counsel, law 

professors, and judges. 

NACDL urges the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

to form Guidance Groups dominated by scientists who are independent of 

law enforcement and inclusive of statisticians, researchers, and quality 

control experts. Since the National Research Council (NRC) issued its 

clarion call for reform of forensic science, NACDL has consistently 

advocated for implementation of the NRC’s overarching recommendation 

– that the validity of forensic disciplines be examined and standards be set

by an entity independent of law enforcement and dominated by a culture 

of science.1

 

In its 2009 report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A 

Path Forward, (the NRC report) the NRC found a dearth of empirical 

research underlying the forensic sciences. It concluded that many forensic 

disciplines relied upon by the justice system to convict and exonerate have

1

 National Research Council, Strengthening Forensic Science in the 

United States: A Path Forward (February 2009). 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 54 of 337
not been scientifically assessed to determine either their reliability or accuracy. Further the NRC

found that many forensic analysts did not understand scientific methodology or understand the 

limitations of their discipline. To address these failures the NRC Committee was unequivocal in 

its foremost recommendation that the development of forensic science must be independent of 

law enforcement and must engage the larger scientific community and scientific methodology. 

As a result, with the goal of developing forensic science into an objective tool grounded in 

science to assist the justice system, NACDL’s priority recommendation for the creation of 

Guidance Groups is that each group be dominated by independent scientists; that statisticians, 

researchers, and quality control experts be included among these independent scientists; and that 

the role of stakeholders (prosecutors, forensic scientists, innocence advocates, judges, current 

forensic science professional organizations and defense attorneys) should be limited and be 

evenly balanced between law enforcement and defense. 

Stakeholders can inform the process by describing how the results of forensic methods are used 

and misused in criminal cases. Stakeholders can describe the circumstances under which 

forensic practitioners work and can identify existing research and standards. And stakeholders 

can offer both criticisms and defenses of existing standards and practices. But stakeholders 

cannot be relied upon to assess the scientific validity of forensic methods or their limitations. Nor 

can stakeholders be relied upon to establish the standards under which forensic disciplines 

should be conducted and how results should be reported. If stakeholders, including the current 

community of forensic organizations, could have fully accomplished these tasks, crime labs 

would not be riddled with scandals, faulty forensic science would not be among the leading 

causes of wrongful convictions, and the scientific shortcomings identified in the NRC report 

would have been caught and corrected long ago. 

NACDL opposes any effort to use existing organizations as the backbone of the Guidance 

Groups, and specifically opposes the transition of Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) into 

Guidance Groups. The SWGs are not independent of law enforcement; they were created by law 

enforcement and employees of law enforcement laboratories comprise a majority of the 

membership of individual SWGs.2

 Many SWGs’ bylaws preclude the meaningful involvement 

of independent research scientists, whose only stake in any given forensic discipline is ensuring 

the use of sound science, in favor of practitioners, who have a stake in maintaining the status quo 

of their discipline.3

 

2 See, e.g., Scientific Working Group for Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST), available at 

http://www.swgfast.org/Members.htm; Scientific Working Group for Firearms and Toolmarks (SWGGUN), 

available at (http://www.swggun.org/swg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=3); 

Scientific Working Group for DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM), available at http://swgdam.org/members.html; 

Scientific Working Group for Shoeprint and Tire Tread Evidence (SWGTREAD), available at 

http://www.swgtread.org/about-us/membership/current-membership); 

3 See, e.g., SWGFAST bylaws at 3.1 (http://www.swgfast.org/Bylaws.htm) (“SWGFAST shall consist of up to 50 

members involved in the discipline of friction ridge examination and shall include both latent print and tenprint 

practitioners. Members shall be from local, state and federal law enforcement agencies as well as the forensic 

community.”)

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 55 of 337
3 

SWG work product demonstrates this extreme imbalance in membership. For example, in the 

wake of the NRC report, the SWGs published written responses that were simultaneously 

defensive and failed to grasp the import of criticisms leveled at their respective disciplines.4 

Moreover, every written response to the NRC report by the SWGs rejected the notion that their 

discipline lacked the foundational research to individualize to an “extremely high” degree of 

certainty.5

 Given that it will be the Guidance Groups’ mission to “monitor research and 

measurement standards gaps in each forensic discipline, and verify that a sufficient scientific 

basis exists for each discipline,” clearly it is inadvisable to use organizations that have already 

firmly and publicly made up their minds on these key issues. 

Further, the SWGs have not shown any significant leadership in reform or in instituting best 

practices. Instead the SWGs show extreme deference to practitioners’ trade organizations and 

the variable practice in individual laboratories. This approach suggests a deliberate attempt to 

protect the admissibility of specific forensic methods and the admissibility of forensic evidence 

obtained without following best practices. 

As a result most SWG guidelines – particularly those regarding interpretation of results – are so 

vague that they fail to provide any sort of standard for practitioners to follow. For example, 

SWGGUN’s interpretation guidelines,6 re-approved just last year (more than three years after the 

NRC report was published), are contained in a one page document that simply states “The 

4 See, e.g., SWGTREAD, Identification and Clarification of Inaccuracies in the National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS) Report, available at http://www.swgtread.org/images/documents/nas/nas_response_inaccuracies.pdf 

(referring to “misrepresentations” in the report and incorrectly identifying “inaccuracies” in a number of the NRC’s 

conclusions about the discipline); SWGFAST, NAS Position Summary, available at 

http://www.swgfast.org/Comments-Positions/SWGFAST_NAS_Position.pdf. (brushing aside the NRC’s concerns 

about bias with the statement that “the Committee has exerted a disproportionate amount of effort in addressing it”, 

failing to understand the NRC’s concerns about the unconstrained subjectivity of their discipline, defending the 

discipline’s criticized methodology (ACE-V) as “a structured, logical procedure designed to minimize bias resulting

in very few errors” and rejecting the NRC’s recommendation that laboratories be independent of law enforcement).

5 See, e.g., SWGGUN, The Foundations of Firearm and Toolmark Identification (5/1/13), available at 

http://www.swggun.org/swg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66:the-foundations-of-firearm-andtoolmark-identification&catid=13:other&Itemid=43 (“[I]t is the conclusion of the Scientific Working Group for 

Firearms and Toolmarks (SWGGUN) that the discipline of Firearms/Toolmark Identification is scientific and 

reliable. Concomitantly, the identifications, individual associations or ‘matches’ effected in this discipline have firm 

scientific grounding with an extremely high degree of reliability based on the practical certainty of the validated 

theory. . . . The SWGGUN concludes that sufficient validation testing by competent examiners and collaborating 

scientists have been conducted to affirm the theory of firearm and toolmark identification over the past ninety years 

for it to be considered a legitimate science pursuant to the criteria set forth in the scientific method.”); SWGFAST, 

NAS Position Summary (see supra) (“SWGFAST maintains that a significant body of constructive scientific 

research has already been conducted that addresses some of the concerns expressed in the report. . . . The NAS states 

‘With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, however, no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the 

capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a 

specific individual or source.’ SWGFAST respectfully disagrees. History, practice, and research have shown that 

fingerprints can, with a very high degree of certainty, exclude incorrect sources and associate the correct individual

to an unknown impression”); SWGSTAIN, Response to the NAS Report (“the foundation for these opinions is based 

upon well-established scientific principles. The scientific literature supporting these principles extends back more 

than one hundred years.”).

6 Available at http://www.swggun.org/swg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28:criteria-foridentification&catid=10:guidelines-adopted&Itemid=6. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 56 of 337
4 

laboratory shall adopt a Criteria for Identification as it pertains to the firearm/toolmark 

discipline.” The only guidance about what bounds a laboratory’s interpretation protocol should 

place on a practitioner’s discretion is an endorsement of the firearm examiner trade association’s 

definition of what constitutes “sufficient agreement” of toolmarks to declare a match to a 

particular firearm or other tool. Notably, this “sufficient agreement” statement was expressly 

criticized in the 2009 NRC report for its lack of specificity and guidance to practitioners. See 

NRC report at 155. 

In addition, the SWGs’ “standards” often let laboratories and individual practitioners decide 

what quality control measures to adopt, while ignoring best practices. For instance, instead of 

stating that laboratories “must” or even “should” implement blind verification procedures in 

fingerprint examinations, SWGFAST’s only acknowledgment of blind verification is to treat it as 

a permitted practice.7

 Ignoring best practices in favor of vague and permissive guidelines is 

inconsistent with implementing sound science across a discipline. Instead this “guidance” 

allows labs to ignore best practices and still face little challenge when presenting evidence and/or 

testimony. The guidance provided by the SWGs is consistent with actors who are mindful that 

the wording of their guidance documents could carry legal implications for practitioners in their 

discipline. The courts routinely assess what is “generally accepted” by scientists when 

determining whether evidence obtained through a particular method can be admitted. In a 

system that assesses what is “generally accepted” in the field before admitting evidence, uniform 

standards incorporating best practices would be the undoing of labs who choose not to follow the 

guidance provided.8

 Protecting current laboratory practices and the admissibility of existing 

forensic methods must not factor into the decision-making processes of the Guidance Groups. 

Such non-scientific motives will not “improve the nation’s use of forensic science and promote 

best practices and standards.” 

Instead of relying on existing forensic science organizations, the formation of the Guidance 

Groups must actively recruit independent research scientists and statisticians with the expertise 

to critically evaluate each forensic discipline. Guidance Groups staffed in this manner can 

assess the validity of specific forensic disciplines and set standards for validated methods that 

reflect the consensus of the larger scientific community. Such consensus standards will impact 

forensic practice at all levels (federal, state and local) as almost all court admissibility standards 

for specific scientific evidence include assessing the views of the larger scientific community on 

the validity of the methods and the standards by which the methods should be performed. 

This is not to suggest that stakeholders should play no role on the Guidance Groups. As 

explained above, stakeholders can play a valuable, but limited, role. Even in this limited role, 

however, an additional level of balance must be struck. The stakeholder positions must be 

7 Available at http://www.swgfast.org/documents/blind-verification/121124_Blind-Verification_2.0.pdf.

8 Further evidence of this focus on admissibility over sound science is the effort and amount of space on SWG 

websites devoted to “Admissibility Resource Kits”, the goal of which is to ensure that a practitioner has the tools at 

hand to ensure his or her testimony is admissible at trial. See, e.g., SWGGUN, 

http://www.swggun.org/swg/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=7&Itemid=8); SWGSTAIN, 

http://www.swgstain.org/resources/ark; SWGMAT, http://www.swgmat.org/2012%20fiber%20Daubert%20-

%20final.pdf; SWGDOC, http://www.swgdoc.org/index.php/resources. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 57 of 337
5 

evenly divided between law enforcement and defense. Any imbalance between these two groups 

compromises the goal of independence. 

When selecting representation for the defense, NIST should defer to the defense community to 

select its representative. The defense function and defense organizations are separate from the 

Executive Branch because of the adversarial nature of our criminal justice system. As a result, 

there is no defense function or defense organization within the Executive Branch. NACDL, on 

the other hand, is uniquely suited to identify dedicated criminal defense attorneys with expertise 

in the various forensic disciplines.9

NACDL is the largest criminal defense organization in the country. NACDL has an active 

Forensic Science Committee with members from a variety of jurisdictions, practicing in a variety 

of different court systems (state, local, and federal). NIST should consult with NACDL before 

selecting criminal defense representatives and give serious weight to NACDL’s 

recommendations. 

A final comment on the formation of the Guidance Groups is the need for transparency. The 

principle of transparency is essential to a fair and effective criminal justice system and is the 

hallmark of good science. The work of the Guidance Groups should be transparent and available 

for comment and review. Comment and review by scientists and stakeholders outside of the 

membership of the Forensic Science Commission and the Guidance Groups will advance the 

work of the Guidance Groups. The value of the reports prepared by the Guidance Groups will be 

determined not only by their content but also by the process under which they were created. 

The National Academy of Sciences, long recognized as the most prestigious scientific 

organization in country, has established its reputation in part because of the exacting and 

transparent process the organization utilizes in researching and preparing its reports. This process 

includes meetings that are announced in advance and open to the public; submission of 

information by outside parties; review of the scientific literature; and investigation by the 

committee members and staff. Written materials submitted to the committee are maintained in a 

public access file that is available for examination. In all cases, efforts are made to solicit input 

from individuals who have been directly involved in, or who have special knowledge of, the 

problem under consideration. Once a draft report is prepared, the committee solicits individuals 

with expertise in the area being studied who have varying perspectives on the subject to provide 

comments. The committee must then respond to the reviewers’ comments in some fashion either 

by accepting them and adopting the suggested changes or by providing a written “response to 

review.”10 

9

 Kyle O’Dowd, NACDL’s Associate Executive Director for Policy, may be reached at (202) 

465-7626 or at kodowd@nacdl.org.

10 The entire process is described on the National Academy of Sciences website 

(http://www.nationalacademies.org/studyprocess/).

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 58 of 337
6 

This is an example of a process that allows a diverse group of committee members to work 

together productively and independently while at the same time providing the necessary 

transparency that ensures a broad range of perspectives will be evaluated and incorporated if 

scientifically appropriate. NACDL strongly recommends the Guidance Groups be established in 

a manner that fosters independence, peer review and public comment.

In conclusion, NACDL strongly believes that each Guidance Group should be dominated by 

independent scientists; that statisticians, researchers, and quality control experts be included 

among these independent scientists; and that the role of stakeholders (prosecutors, forensic 

scientists, innocence advocates, judges, current forensic science professional organizations and 

defense attorneys) should be limited and be evenly balanced between law enforcement and 

defense. Finally, the work of the Guidance Groups should be transparent and peer review and 

public comment should be encouraged. 

Sincerely, 

Jerry J. Cox 

NACDL President 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 59 of 337
3228 Gun Club Road  West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3001  (561) 688-3000  http://www.pbso.org

- 1 - 10/30/2013 C:\Users\crousec\Desktop\GuidanceGroup PBSO.dot 

October 29, 2013 

To Whom It May Concern, 

The Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office Crime Laboratory submits the following response to the notice 

in the Federal Registry regarding the perspectives on the appropriate model for NIST administration and 

support of discipline-specific Guidance Groups. 

1. Structure of the Guidance Groups: Given the scope and principles of the Guidance Groups

(GG), a suggested structural model to best support these groups taking into account the

technical, policy, legal and operational aspects of forensic science would be to first define the

composite of each GG. It is suggested that within each GG, there will be would be two subgroups to include a Core Group and an Invited Guest Group. These could be defined as follows:

o Core Group: The GG’s should have a Core Group of 15-25 participants, depending on

the forensic discipline

 The Core Group is responsible for reporting GG business to the NIST

representative(s).

 There is a GG Chair and Co-Chair within the Core Group

 The Core Group members have voting privileges.

 Core Group composite:

 Practitioner: This position must be clearly defined as a case working

analyst/examiner.

 Approximately 50% of the Core Group should be practitioners.

 Federal/State/Local laboratories should be represented.

 Geographical representation:

 The practitioners should not all be from the major

metropolitan areas or the most populace states.

 Statistician: must be knowledgeable and currently using the skill set

associated with this role. It is conceivable that a Practitioner may also

have a statistical skill set and could fill this position.

 Researcher: This must be clearly defined as an individual who is directly

involved in the research pertinent to the GGs objectives. If there has been

a grant awarded to a researcher to conduct research directly associated

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 60 of 337
- 2 - 10/30/2013 C:\Users\crousec\Desktop\GuidanceGroup PBSO.dot 

with a GG’s goals and objectives, they should be considered for the Core 

Group or an Invited Guest for the specific Working/Ad Hoc Group. 

 Academician: This is an individual who has a position at a college or

university and has the essential skill sets necessary to contribute the GG’s

goals and objectives. This individual may also be a researcher.

 Quality Assurance Manager: An individual who spends at minimum

50% of their time performing QA related tasks. The QA Manager provides

accreditation support for the disciplines including compliance with ISO

and Supplemental standards. A QA Manager should also be considered as

an Invited Guest in an advisory position as necessary.

 The Core Group should NOT allow membership from:

 Private vendors, although there may be instances where an

individual from a private vendor may be an Invited Guest or to

give a presentation to the GG.

 Crime Laboratory Directors, unless the individual is still

maintaining proficiency in their discipline.

 Individuals retired from the laboratory or those no longer reporting

casework results.

 Judicial advocates are not necessary at this level

 There should be a mechanism whereby if a member of the Core Group is

not actively engaged in the GG mission they may be replaced.

o Invited Guests Group: The size of the Invited Guest Group will depend on the needs of

the Working/Ad Hoc Groups within the specific GG’s. In general:

 The Invited Guest Group members do not have voting privileges.

 This group should consist of individuals who may provide relevant agendaspecific presentations.

 Potential for membership to GG Working/Ad Hoc Groups.

 Crime Laboratory Directors that are not proficient in a forensic discipline may be

considered an Invited Guest in an advisory position to council a GG on the

potential impact of a specific standard, requirement or guideline such as the

laboratory’s fiscal year budget, personnel or case backlog for example.

o There should be two scheduled GG meetings annually. A GG Meeting Agenda Template

would most likely include a three (3) or four (4) day meeting. Here are two suggestions

for the GG meeting format:

 Meeting Template Consideration #1:

 Day 1:

 Travel, where necessary additional meeting time for Working/Ad

Hoc Groups that may need extra time to coordinate work-inprogress

 Not open to the public

 DAY 2:

 Invited Guest presentations, “old business” as appropriate

 Allow timed public comment with prior approval for speaker(s)

 Open to the public

 Day 3: Working Group/Ad Hoc Group Break-out

 Conduct work-product business

 Not open to the public

 Day 4:

 Working/Ad Hoc Group present up-date status report to the Core

Group

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 61 of 337
- 3 - 10/30/2013 C:\Users\crousec\Desktop\GuidanceGroup PBSO.dot 

 No public comment, time most likely will not permit

 Open to the public

 Close-out before 1:00pm

 Meeting Template Consideration #2:

 Day 1: All Working/Ad Hoc Groups meet through webinars at

their laboratories eliminating hotel/per diem costs for that day

 Day 2: Travel to site meeting

 Day 3: Invited Guest presentations, “old business” as appropriate

 Allow timed public comment with prior approval for

speaker(s)

 Open to the public

 Day 4:

 Working/Ad Hoc Group present up-date report to the Core

Group

 Open to the public

 Close-out before 1:00pm

x Successful forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) have the following attributes which may 

be drawn upon for the formation of the GGs: 

o A sustainable, active, enforced Charter

o Mandatory, enforceable quality standards

o Definitive timelines and milestones for Working Group/Ad Hoc Group tasks

o Relationship with academics, researchers, statisticians and forensic laboratories not

represented on pertinent SWGs.

x Best practices may be found in several current SWGs that may be drawn upon for the GGs. 

Using DNA as an example, SWGDAM has 

o All of the attributes delineated above

o Public website with all pertinent documents published

o Mission statement is published

o The website is updated and maintained

o Agendas are available to the public

o Encourage Public Comment for ensuing standards or recommendations

x Regarding a potential partnership with a standards development organization (SDO) in which the 

standard is issued by the SDO, it is the norm that SDO standards are usually consensus standards 

and not necessarily forensic discipline specific. The standard may be more practical than 

scientific. However, an SDO

o May offer expertise in the design and development of a standard which would benefit the

GG. 

o May add “teeth” to the implementation of a standard by its contribution to coherent

standardized wording. 

x Financial and administrative support of the GGs:

o Consideration of a GG fee-based membership model run through a not-for-profit

organization may not present a significant obstacle for participation but the concern is:

 Laboratories who can afford the membership may not be the best practitioner

representatives.

 Non-forensic members may not be able to afford membership and it would be

difficult to complete the membership composite requirements.

 A tiered fee-based system does not seem feasible or definable.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 62 of 337
- 4 - 10/30/2013 C:\Users\crousec\Desktop\GuidanceGroup PBSO.dot 

o Long term governance, defined as administration and coordination of the GGs, by a

privatized model does not seem feasible and may have the same issues as a not-for-profit

model as described above. This is not a trivial issue as the credibility or generation of the

GGs work product could be affected by governance by a private entity, for example, if

there were connections to vendors by the private vendor or if membership dues were

increased thereby directly affecting laboratory’s budgets and thus made unaffordable.

2. Impact of Guidance Groups

x The Guidance Groups do not have the authority to mandate the adoption of standards but it is 

proposed that they can request accreditation bodies such as ASCLD-LAB, FQS and A2LA to 

adopt the standards in a supplemental to the ISO standards. 

o NOTE: Even with the composite membership component and transparency where

appropriate, it would be very difficult to mandate the adoption and implementation of the

standards at the state and local level especially if there is a budgetary impact. The

following are considerations regarding the adoption of GG standards:

 May withhold federal grant monies if the State and Local level did not comply

 Will not have access to federal databases

 Courts may not accept testimony

 Accreditation may be withheld

x The GGs should engage the professional organizations such as AAFS, IAI, AFTE, SOFT and 

NAME to coordinate and consolidate potential policies, standards and research opportunities. 

x GGs may positively impact the certification process by forging a relationship with certification 

bodies to provide relevant examination questions. 

x NIST researchers might engage with the Guidance Groups in the following ways: 

o Depending on the GG, a NIST researcher may be considered part of a Core Group.

o As ‘Invited guests’ to meetings to discuss/obtain and give guidance/explain research

projects that affect the forensic community.

o Conduct research projects identified by the core groups or NIST should provide funding

via grants to external researchers for this purpose.

o Peer-review publish the research performed by their researchers and grantees.

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups

x The GG stakeholders are described above in Core Groups and Invited Guest Group discussion. 

o NIST should be certain the right practitioners are part of the GG’s.

 Longevity should not be a consideration

o Balanced representation means that all of the criteria necessary to design and generate

standards and policies are addressed by subject matter experts who are active members of

the GGs.

o Although there are many stakeholders that may not be a direct part of the GG’s, they may

be directly affected by the work product generated by the GGs. The stakeholders would

include all of the entities that the GG Groups members represent such as the Federal,

State and Local laboratories, accreditation bodies, certification bodies, academic

institutions with forensic programs, the judicial system among others.

x Engaging organizations to play a role in forensic science, standards development and practice 

will occur by allowing public comment, invited guest lectureships, collaborative research efforts 

and GG Working Group/Ad Hoc Group participation. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 63 of 337
- 5 - 10/30/2013 C:\Users\crousec\Desktop\GuidanceGroup PBSO.dot 

x There should be an application and culling process in place for individuals interested in invited 

lectureships or being an Invited Guest Group member in the Working Groups/Ad Hoc Groups. 

x The Federal government must be able to appropriately fund all activities associated with the 

GGs. This will provide an equitable, organized and uniformly managed program for the GGs. 

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups

x All Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) should transition to Guidance Groups. 

x It may be advantageous for several groups to be combined. Suggested combinations include: 

o DNA, Wildlife Forensic Analysis

o Medico-Legal Death Investigation, Disaster Victim Identification

o Facial Recognition and Imaging Technology

o Geological and Trace Evidence

x There should be a cross-disciplinary functional approach for the GGs in order to share common 

issues. For example, Guidance Groups should share methodologies for statistical analysis such as 

uncertainty of measurement and documenting traceability compliance. This would mean there 

would have to be a coordinated effort to know the status and agenda of the GGs so as not to miss 

an opportunity to contribute to the shared projects. 

If you would like any further expansion of the comments presented, do not hesitate to contact me. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

Cecelia A. Crouse, PhD 

Crime Laboratory Director 

Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office 

3228 Gun Club Road 

West Palm Beach, Florida 33411 

Ph: (561) 688-4226 

Fax: (561) 688-4224 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 64 of 337
	


		




   		

$7,21$/167,787(2) 7$1'$5'6$1'!(&+12/2*< !

&2 86$1$//28

	85($85,9(

$,/6723	


$,7+(56%85*


 (179,$(0$,/ 86$1%$//281,67*29

29(0%(5	

	

($56$//28

$0:5,7,1*21%(+$/)2)7+(0(5,&$12/<*5$3+662&,$7,21!+(,6$1,17(51$7,21$/

$662&,$7,212)32/<*5$3+(;$0,1(5635$&7,7,21(56$1'7+26(:,7+$6&,(17,),&25352)(66,21$/,17(5(67,17+(

),(/' 7+528*+5(6($5&+25,167580(17$7,21#(&855(17/<+$9($3352;,0$7(/<0(0%(56 ,1&(7+(


 5(3257217+(67$7(2))25(16,&6&,(1&(6,17+(" :(+$9(%((1&2//$%25$7,1*:,7+7+(

0(5,&$1662&,$7,212)2/,&(2/<*5$3+,676:+,&++$6$3352;,0$7(/<	0(0%(562),762:1

:,7+620(29(5/$3,10(0%(56+,3!+(*2$/2)7+$7&2//$%25$7,21+$6%((172'(9(/23$675$7(*<72

,03/(0(177+(
5(&200(1'$7,216$67+(<5(/$7(727+()25(16,&6&,(1&(68%',6&,3/,1(2)&5(',%,/,7<

$66(660(17,17+26($5($6,1:+,&+7+(),(/',6/,.(0$1<2)2856,67(5',6&,3/,1(6,11(('2),03529(0(17

!+528*+287285',6&866,21621(&217,182867+(0(+$6(0(5*('7+(5(,6$1((')25$&5(',%,/,7<

$66(660(176&,(17,),&:25.,1**5283# 25620(6,0,/$5*5283

#(68332573$571(5,1*:,7+ $67$1'$5'6'(9(/230(1725*$1,=$7,2168&+$6 !17(51$7,21$/

$3352;,0$7(/<	0(0%(56$1',7+$6 -85,6',&7,2129(5	',))(5(1767$1'$5'6(0%(56+,3,1&/8'(6

5(6($5&+(56$1'$&$'(0,&6$/7+28*+7+(/$5*(6768%*5283&216,6762)35$&7,7,21(5602672):+20+2/'

0(0%(56+,36,17+(25%27+!+(6&23(2)7+(&200,77((,6:,'($1',1&/8'(667$1'$5'6)25

0,1,080%$6,&('8&$7,21$1'75$,1,1*5(6($5&+,167580(17$7,2148$/,7<&21752/$1'(7+,&$/35$&7,&(6

6<28$5(/,.(/<:(//$:$5( !17(51$7,21$/+$6$)((%$6('0(0%(56+,36758&785(:+,&+$/7+28*+

02'(67,62)7(1&,7('$6$%$55,(572 *5($7(53$57,&,3$7,21,0,7('3$57,&,3$7,215('8&(6,1387)5207+(

9$5,286)$&(762)7+(),(/'$1'6/2:6&216(168667$1'$5'6'(9(/230(1785" 0(0%(56,1&/8'(35,9$7(

)25(16,&63(&,$/,67667$7($1'/2&$//$:(1)25&(0(172)),&(56$1'&5,0,1$/-867,&( 1$7,21$/6(&85,7<$*(176

2)7+()('(5$/*29(510(17:+,&++$6

,1'(3(1'(17&5(',%,/,7<$66(660(17352*5$06$1'/,.(/<&21'8&76

7(162)7+286$1'62)(;$0,1$7,216($&+<($5$1<2)2850(0%(563$<)250(0%(56+,3,1352)(66,21$/

$662&,$7,2167+(06(/9(6,(7+(<$5(1275(,0%856('%<7+(,5$*(1&,(6$1'7+(<6,03/<&$1127%8'*(7

$'',7,21$/)81'6723$<)250(0%(56+,3,1$1 !+86:+,/(7+(6758&785(2)$1 68&+$6 !

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 65 of 337
	


		




   		

17(51$7,21$/,62)*5($7%(1(),7727+(35$&7,7,21(56$1'&21680(56&2676$5($/:$<6$/,0,7,1*)$&725$1'

7+(5()25(0867%(&216,'(5(':+(1'(9(/23,1*8,'$1&(52836 253$571(5,1*:,7+27+(56

127+(5352%/(0:(6((:,7+$35,9$7( ,6$',))(5(17,668($/7+28*+ ,7,6 620(:+$75(/$7('72&2676

855(17/<21/< !17(51$7,21$/0(0%(56+$9($&&(667238%/,6+('67$1'$5'6:+,&+$5(3527(&7('

%<" &23<5,*+7/$:6!+(5(68/7$17',6&211(&7,62%9,28635$&7,7,21(56,17+(),(/'6,03/<'2127+$9(

$&&(66727+(&216(1686%$6('%(6735$&7,&(67+$7$/5($'<(;,6725(29(5&21680(56)$&($6,0,/$5

'5$:%$&.,17+$77+(<+$9(/,0,7('0($162)(1685,1*7+(<$5(5(&(,9,1*6(59,&(6&216,67(17:,7+7+26(

%(6735$&7,&(67$1'$5'6!+,6,6352%/(0$7,&*,9(10$1<67$7(6'23(50,732/<*5$3+(9,'(1&('(63,7(

&20021&/$,06727+(&2175$5<)7+26(7+$73(50,7,70267'262%<67,38/$7,21$/7+28*+(:(;,&2

+$6$//2:('8167,38/$7('32/<*5$3+(9,'(1&()256(9(5$/<($562/<*5$3+(9,'(1&(+$6$/62%((13(50,77('

,1620(&28576,1$'0,1,675$7,9(+($5,1*6$1'(9(1620(5(&(17%(1&+75,$/6#+,/(7+($1'

$5(0(0%(562)(,7+(57+(25$1'7+(5()25(:(+$9(12:$<2).12:,1*+2:0$1<

35$&7,7,21(560$<%(23(5$7,1*,1$ )$6+,21,1&216,67(17:,7+5(&2*1,=('%(6735$&7,&(6 25(29(5$1 

+$67+($%,/,7<72%5,1*72*(7+(5$:,'(5*5283,($//67$.(+2/'(567+$1'2352)(66,21$/$662&,$7,216

67+($7,21$/200,66,212125(16,& &,(1&(&216,'(56+2:72%(67$66(0%/( 8,'$1&(52836:(

$6.7+$7,760(0%(56&216,'(57+(9$67$028172):25.7+26(,17+(),(/'2)&5(',%,/,7<$66(660(17'2(9(5<

'$<,.(2856,67(5',6&,3/,1(6,17+()25(16,&6&,(1&(6:(1(('72%(5(35(6(17('$1':(:$1772

&2175,%87(72&219(56$7,21!+(5(,6126(16(5(,19(17,1*7+(:+((/$1'7+(5($5(352*5$06,13/$&(12:

7+$7$5(())(&7,9(%87/,0,7('(* !17(51$7,21$/$1'7+(<&$16(59($602'(/621:+,&+72%8,/'

#+(5($67+(0$1<68%',6&,3/,1(62))25(16,&6&,(1&($/5($'<:25.&223(5$7,9(/<,17+(),(/',70$.(6

6(16(72&20(72*(7+(572'(9(/23&2002167$1'$5'6:+(5(7+$7,63266,%/($1'%(1(),&,$/(*%$6,&

(7+,&$/67$1'$5'60,1,0805(3257,1*&5,7(5,$67$1'$5',=,1*2)7(&+1,&$/7(506&$/&8/$7,1*$&&85$&<

(67,0$7(67+$7&216,'(5+2:72$''5(66,1&21&/86,9(),1',1*6(7&'',7,21$//<$&25(*52837+$7:(//

5(35(6(176$//2)7+(68%',6&,3/,1(66+28/'(67$%/,6+*(1(5$/*8,'(/,1(67+$73529,'(',5(&7,21727+(68%

',6&,3/,1(6)257+('(9(/230(172)67$1'$5'681,48(727+26( ',6&,3/,1(6127+(5:25'6(9(1:+(5(68%

',6&,3/,1(6+$9(81,48(1(('625+,*+/<63(&,$/,=('35$&7,&(667$1'$5'6'(9(/230(17$77+26(/(9(/66+28/'

%(&216,67(17:,7+7+(27+(5',6&,3/,1(6

!+$1.<28)25<285&216,'(5$7,21)7+(&$1+(/3,1$1< :$<3/($6(/(786.12:

(*$5'6

$55<86+0$1

+$,50$12)7+(%2$5'

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 66 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 67 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 68 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 69 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 70 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 71 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 72 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 73 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 74 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 75 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 76 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 77 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 78 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 79 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 80 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 81 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 82 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 83 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 84 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 85 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 86 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 87 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 88 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 89 of 337
 

 Barry C. Scheck, Esq. 

 Peter J. Neufeld, Esq. 

 Directors 

 Maddy deLone, Esq. 

 Executive Director 

 Innocence Project 

 40 Worth Street, Suite 701 

 New York, NY 10013 

 Tel 212.364.5340 

 Fax 212.364.5341 

www.innocenceproject.org 

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 

November 26, 2013 

Susan Ballou 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

100 Bureau Drive, Mailstop 8102 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Dear Ms. Ballou, 

The Innocence Project would like to express our thanks to the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) for the opportunity to provide feedback on possible models for the 

administration and support of discipline-specific Guidance Groups for forensic science. Our 

organization is a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating 

wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to 

prevent future miscarriages of justice. To date, post-conviction DNA testing has exonerated 311 

innocent people who had been wrongfully convicted of serious crimes. That number continues to 

grow. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 

NIST creating the National Commission on Forensic Science as well as the NIST Guidance Groups 

are both important to creating a scientific support network for the forensic science system. These 

initiatives are the most significant embodiment of the recommendations of the National Academy of 

Sciences report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: The Path Forward, to date and we greatly 

anticipate the impact that the Guidance Groups can make on the forensic science landscape. 

The Innocence Project advocates for reforms developed through rigorous research that can identify, 

prevent, and remediate the factors that contribute to wrongful convictions. The top priorities 

informed by our findings address systemic problems in eyewitness identification, forensic science, 

false confessions, incentivized jailhouse informant testimony, and unnecessarily limited access to 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 90 of 337
Innocence Project, Inc. 

November 26, 2013 

Page 2 

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 

post-conviction DNA testing. In our review of the contributing causes of the nation’s first 311 

post-conviction DNA exonerations, reliance on forensic evidence that was either applied before full 

validation or improperly applied has proven to be the second most frequent contributing factor in 

wrongful convictions, having played a role in approximately half of those cases. It is important to 

note, however, that relevant biological evidence is only present in a small percentage of serious 

crimes and that, according to crime laboratory directors, DNA testing may be viable in fewer than 

10% of all felonies - other forms of forensic evidence may be probative in a large percentage of 

those other cases. The need for reliability in non-DNA forensic evidence and newly developing 

DNA technologies is critical to the integrity of our criminal justice system. 

For the reasons stated above, the development of rigorous technical standards is an imperative. In 

considering the organization of Guidance Groups, the Innocence Project ascribes to two primary 

principles. First, experts should be incorporated into this process in the areas of their expertise. 

Second, the Guidance Group structure is an important opportunity to introduce, encourage, and 

incorporate the collaboration of forensic scientists and academic/private sector researchers. Under 

these principles, we recommend Guidance Groups organized by general scientific areas of study 

under a Forensic Science Standards Advisory Committee (FSAC). We believe this structure and the 

corresponding processes we recommend will ensure the development of scientifically rigorous 

standards as well as the practicality of their implementation. 

Key Terminology and Definitions 

The Innocence Project realizes that the wide range of applications and uses of forensic science in 

many contexts makes developing definitions difficult. For consistency, the following definitions, in 

part adopted from the NIST Guidance Group NOI, will be used henceforth. 

 Forensic Investigation: investigations into criminal, atrocity, intelligence and homeland 

security matters, or investigations used in civil litigation or for mass disaster victim 

identification. 

 Forensic Analysis(es): analysis(es) intended for casework during a forensic investigation 

related to a criminal, atrocity, intelligence and homeland security matters, or an analysis(es) 

conducted for civil litigation or for mass disaster victim identification. 

Another complicating but enriching aspect of forensic science is that the field requires the 

participation of members of two divergent groups – the scientific and criminal justice communities –

but also includes members who identify with both communities. The following are definitions for 

terms that will be used to describe people who will participate in the organizational structure that 

will oversee and serve as members on Guidance Groups. We understand that there will be many 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 91 of 337
Innocence Project, Inc. 

November 26, 2013 

Page 3 

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 

valued members of the criminal justice and scientific community who may not be perfectly defined 

by the specific terminology below or who may qualify in more than one category. We offer these 

terms as a best effort to broadly characterize the participants in our proposed organization of 

Guidance Groups under a Forensic Science Standards Advisory Committee. 

• Forensic Science Expert: 

– Forensic Science Practitioner: an individual working as an independent consultant or 

working in a public or private crime laboratory or medical examiner office that 

collects crime scene evidence or conducts forensic analyses. 

– Forensic Scientist: a researcher or scientist from industry, a university setting, or 

scientific or governmental agency who conducts basic or applied research specific 

within forensic science disciplines or methods. 

• Relevant Expert: 

– Academic or Private Sector Researcher: a scientist, statistician, or engineer from a 

university setting or scientific, governmental agency or industry who conducts 

research within life, physical, cognitive, or computer science subjects relevant to 

forensic disciplines or methods and not previously focused on forensic science. 

• Stakeholders: non-scientific and non-technical members of communities who interact with 

forensic evidence as a result of forensic investigations; these stakeholders may include 

judges, attorneys, prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, members of innocence or 

wrongful conviction groups, law enforcement, and members of advocacy organizations that 

pursue improvements in the application of forensic science to criminal justice whose 

members are neither Forensic Science Experts nor Relevant Experts, etc. 

The following terminology refers to the bodies represented on the organization chart in Table 1 (see 

page 6). Below, each body and its membership will be defined. Subsequent sections of this letter 

will provide support for the organization of these bodies, their membership, and how they will work 

together to develop technical standards in a process that incorporates transparency and public 

feedback. 

 Forensic Science Standards Advisory Committee (FSAC): This Advisory Committee is 

responsible for finalizing and approving technical standards and recommending their 

publication to the Director of NIST. The FSAC will be composed of the co-chairs of each 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 92 of 337
Innocence Project, Inc. 

November 26, 2013 

Page 4 

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 

Guidance Group and NIST scientists that represent the scientific areas represented by the 

Guidance Groups. 

 Scientific and Technical Groups: These standard setting bodies will develop disciplinespecific technical standards. These are standards that relate specifically to the conduct, 

analysis, and interpretation of forensic evidence intended for forensic investigation. 

o Technical Guidance Groups: The responsibilities of the Scientific Working Groups 

(SWGs) will be transitioned to discipline-specific Subcommittees. These 

Subcommittees will be organized under a Technical Guidance Group that covers the 

general scientific field that governs the practice of that category of forensic 

disciplines. These Technical Guidance Groups will review technical standards 

created by the Subcommittees and recommend them for publication by the FSAC. 

Each Technical Guidance Group will be Co-Chaired by one Forensic Science Expert 

and one Relevant Expert. Its membership will be equally represented by Forensic 

Science Experts and Relevant Experts.

o Subcommittees: SWG responsibilities will transition to discipline-specific 

Subcommittees. These Subcommittees will be the entry point for Standards 

Development Organizations (SDOs) and coordinate their work for submission to 

the Technical Guidance Group that oversees that Subcommittee. The SDOs will 

conform to the attributes by which voluntary consensus standards bodies are defined 

by OMB Circular A-1191 and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTA).2 Subcommittees will be composed of appropriate members 

from the parent Technical Guidance Group and other Forensic and Relevant 

Experts as needed. 

 Court Interactive Groups: These standard setting bodies will develop cross-disciplinary 

technical standards. These are technical standards that are relevant for all forensic 

investigations. 

o Quality Infrastructure Guidance Group (QI Guidance Group): This Guidance 

Group will cover cross-disciplinary scientific and technical topics that relate to 

improving quality assurance, quality control, and other improvements in the forensic 

science system. Forensic Science Experts and Relevant Experts will recommend 

technical standards for accreditation, certification, education, training, personnel 

requirements, evidence collection, and any other quality issues that may arise. This 

Guidance Group will be the point of entry for SDOs or SDO generated standards. 

Before the QI Guidance Group recommends standards to the FSAC, it must consult 

with Guidance Group Advisors and the Legal Advisory Group. 

 

1 Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-119 Revised, Feburary 10, 1998, available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119 (last accessed, October 24, 2013). 215 USC § 272, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 93 of 337
Innocence Project, Inc. 

November 26, 2013 

Page 5 

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 

o Human Factors Guidance Group (HF Guidance Group): This Guidance Group will 

cover cross-disciplinary scientific and technical topics that relate to improving 

human factors issues in forensic science. Forensic Experts and Relevant Experts 

will recommend technical standards for cognitive bias, statements of uncertainty, 

standard terminology to describe data or categorize results of forensic analyses, 

reporting, testimony, blinding processes, the relevance of jury psychology and 

decision making psychology to forensic processes, failure analysis/root cause 

analysis, and any other human factors issues that may arise. This Guidance Group 

will be the point of entry for SDOs or SDO generated standards. Before the QI 

Guidance Group recommends standards to the FSAC, it must consult with 

Guidance Group Advisors and the Legal Advisory Group. 

o Guidance Group Advisors: This group will be composed of one Forensic Expert 

and one Relevant Expert from each Technical Guidance Group. There will be two 

Guidance Group Advisors groups – one to provide consultation to the QI Guidance 

Group and the other to the HF Guidance Group. 

o Legal Advisory Group: This group will be composed of stakeholders from the 

criminal justice, atrocity, intelligence and homeland security, civil litigation, and mass 

disaster victim identification communities. There will be two Legal Advisory groups 

– one to provide consultation to the QI Guidance Group and the other to the HF 

Guidance Group. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 94 of 337
Innocence Project, Inc. 

November 26, 2013 

Page 6 

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 95 of 337
Innocence Project, Inc. 

November 26, 2013 

Page 7 

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 

Organization & Composition of Guidance Groups and Forensic Science Standards Advisory 

Committee 

In order to support high quality, valid, and reliable forensic science technical standards that are welldesigned and practical, the input of a wide range of experts will be required. However, some 

technical standards are a completely scientific and technical endeavor while others will require the 

input of a diversity of stakeholders because they govern aspects of the forensic science process that 

includes interactions with the non-scientific and non-technical members of communities which 

utilize forensic evidence. This dichotomy makes it more difficult to recommend a simple, 

minimalist structure. Although our proposal for organizing Guidance Groups under the FSAC 

creates different processes for discipline-specific and cross-disciplinary technical standards 

development, the purpose is to ensure that feedback is sought from the communities whose 

expertise is directly applicable to the standards being deliberated. This section will describe the 

organization of the Guidance Groups followed by a description of how the FSAC will function. 

NIST Guidance Groups 

According to the March 2013 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), DOJ and NIST entered into 

an agreement to establish the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS). As part of NIST’s 

standalone responsibility, it will “continue to develop methods for forensic science measurements 

and will validate select existing forensic science standards,” 3 thereby creating test and measurement 

standards. NIST has also been designated to establish successors to the present day FBI Scientific 

Working Groups (SWGs) in the form of Guidance Groups “intended to develop and propose 

discipline-specific practice guidance that will become publicly available and may be considered 

(along with other relevant and publicly-available materials) by Federal agencies and forensic sciencerelated groups.” This coordinated effort is designed to standardize national guidance for forensic 

science practitioners at all levels of government.4

 We propose that Guidance Groups be divided 

into two categories – one group will address discipline-specific technical standards and another 

group will address cross-disciplinary standards. 

Guidance Groups Should Be Grouped by General Scientific Areas of Study 

Currently, 21 FBI SWGs cover a wide range of specialized forensic science disciplines. Since SWG 

disciplines can generally be categorized into broad scientific areas of study, we propose that SWG 

responsibilities be absorbed into Subcommittees that are arranged by Guidance Groups covering 

scientific areas such as biology, chemistry, physics, information technology, etc. Cross-disciplinary 

topics which are relevant to every forensic discipline will also require technical standards setting by

 

3 “Possible Models for the Administration and Support of Discipline-Specific Guidance Groups for Forensic Science; 

Notice of Inquiry” 78 Federal Register 188 (27 September 2013), pp. 59655 4 Ibid.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 96 of 337
Innocence Project, Inc. 

November 26, 2013 

Page 8 

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 

Guidance Groups. For example, the topics of reporting and blinding procedures can be designated 

to a Guidance Group covering human factors issues. Creating a limited number of Guidance 

Groups by general scientific areas of study is paramount in order to facilitate scientific support and 

promote flexibility. Guidance Groups will establish scientific and technical leadership in each broad 

scientific area of forensic science. Grouping Forensic Science and Relevant Experts within broad 

disciplines will allow expertise and content knowledge within sub-disciplines to be easily exchanged. 

Certain scientific, research, or reliability techniques native to a particular specialty may be exchanged 

within the Guidance Group level and eventually filter down into various Subcommittees. As 

technology improves and develops, new forensic disciplines and new topics of consideration will 

require technical standards setting. This approach to organizing Guidance Groups will allow for the 

inclusion of new technology and methods under the aegis of an extant body that can provide 

experienced scientific and technical leadership, will understand the fundamental issues that would 

challenge the application of that class of forensic science, and will not require an administrative 

expansion.

Furthermore, limiting the number of Guidance Groups will streamline the administrative work 

required to support them such as establishing membership, scheduling meetings, and managing 

work product. This categorization method would centralize the Guidance Groups and make it 

possible to harmonize their work – a tenet of standardization. 

Guidance Group standard setting will be organized into two paths – discipline specific Guidance 

Groups will follow one path and cross-disciplinary Guidance Groups will follow another path. 

Creating this distinction will allow the Guidance Groups to have a balanced and broad 

representation that properly utilizes experts in their areas of specialty. 

Discipline-Specific Guidance Groups and Subcommittees

Under this proposal, SWG responsibilities would be transitioned to Subcommittees and organized 

under Technical Guidance Groups by general scientific areas of study such as biology, chemistry, 

physics, and information technology. In this section, we will regard these Technical Guidance 

Groups in generalities and will not opine on how SWGs will be absorbed into Subcommittees and 

how those Subcommittees will be organized under Technical Guidance Groups. This is a question 

that we will leave to the Forensic Science Experts and Relevant Experts to answer. 

The charge of discipline-specific Guidance Groups is primarily to develop technical standards and 

other scientific guidance, and, therefore, a balanced representation permits that such groups be 

composed exclusively of Forensic Science Experts and Relevant Experts. Forensic Science Experts 

include forensic scientists with research experience in the specific discipline and forensic 

practitioners with relevant technical expertise. Relevant Experts are researchers who work in 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 97 of 337
Innocence Project, Inc. 

November 26, 2013 

Page 9 

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 

academic or private sector settings in relevant fields underlying a specific forensic science discipline. 

Each Technical Guidance Group will have a balanced representation of experts having practical 

experience in conducting forensic analyses with those who are steeped in the underlying scientific 

fields of study, research methodology, quality assurance and quality control practices, and 

experimental design. In these scientifically focused groups, it is our position that criminal justice 

stakeholders with no scientific or technical expertise are not needed. There are few fora in which 

Relevant Experts and Forensic Science Experts can interact purely at a scientific level, and it is 

important to create opportunities to facilitate the development of these relationships. Criminal 

justice stakeholders are unable to contribute to the scientific questions that are central to the focus 

of these discipline-specific Guidance Groups, and because these stakeholders derive from an 

adversarial system that could draw divisions among the Forensic Science Experts and Relevant 

Experts, it seems unnecessary to introduce these external influences. In addition to technical 

standards, Technical Guidance Groups can suggest research agendas, establish product standards for 

the equipment to be used in analyses, and establish terminology standards. Each Technical 

Guidance Group will be co-chaired by one Forensic Science Expert and one Relevant Expert 

elected by the members of the group. 

Subcommittees will be the point of entry for SDO activity or existing standards developed through 

an SDO. Subcommittees will send completed technical standards to the parent Technical Guidance 

Group for review. Since these Subcommittees will share a foundational basis, the Technical 

Guidance Group will develop an expertise and be able to spot and recommend fixes for issues in the 

standards setting process. Subcommittees will be composed of members of the parent Technical 

Guidance Group and additional Forensic Science Experts and Relevant Experts as determined by 

the Technical Guidance Group. 

Cross-Disciplinary Guidance Groups 

Cross-disciplinary Guidance Groups will be designed to address the application of a standard across 

many or all forensic disciplines. These cross-disciplinary groups include two topical Guidance 

Groups – one for Quality Infrastructure and a second focused on Human Factors. The Quality 

Infrastructure (QI) Guidance Group will cover issues related to improving quality assurance, quality 

control, and other improvements in the forensic science system such as accreditation, certification, 

education, training, personnel requirements, evidence collection, and any other quality issues that 

may arise. These activities were grouped together because they all affect the quality of the final 

forensic product and because accreditation, as practiced through ISO 17025 and ISO 17020, either 

tangentially or directly addresses these topics. The QI Guidance Group will be composed of 

Forensic Science Experts and Relevant Experts who specialize in quality and laboratory 

performance issues and co-chaired by one Forensic Science Expert and one Relevant Expert elected 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 98 of 337
Innocence Project, Inc. 

November 26, 2013 

Page 10

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 

by the group. This Guidance Group will not include a Subcommittee structure because so many of 

its members will have a high level of cross-over expertise on many of the issues addressed by this 

Guidance Group. 

The second cross-disciplinary Guidance Group will cover issues related to Human Factors. The 

Human Factors (HF) Guidance Group Forensic will cover issues such as cognitive bias, statements 

of uncertainty, standard terminology to describe data or categorize results of forensic analyses, 

reporting, testimony, blinding processes, the relevance of jury psychology and decision making 

psychology to forensic processes, failure analysis/root cause analysis, and any other human factors 

issues that may arise. This Guidance Group will also be the point of entry for SDOs or SDO 

generated standards. The HF Guidance Group will be composed of Forensic Science Experts and 

Relevant Experts who specialize in human factors and will be co-chaired by one Forensic Science 

Expert and one Relevant Expert elected by the group. The work of this Guidance Group is not 

broken into Subcommittees because there will be few Forensic Science Experts and Relevant 

Experts on each of the topics to be addressed by the group. Keeping these experts together will 

preserve the depth of their expertise because the contribution of all these experts is additive. 

When cross-disciplinary Guidance Groups develop technical standards, they must first be sent for 

feedback by the Guidance Group Advisors and the Legal Advisory Group. The Guidance Group 

Advisors will include representatives from each Technical Guidance Group. This cross-over will 

allow the Guidance Group Advisors to take developments at the QI and HF Guidance Groups back 

to the Technical Guidance Group. Additionally, the QI and HF Guidance Groups will receive 

advice from the Guidance Group Advisors to make their standards practicable for forensic practice. 

The Guidance Group Advisors will include one Forensic Science Expert and one Relevant Expert 

from each Technical Guidance Group. The Guidance Group Advisors detailed to the QI Guidance 

Group will be organized separately from the group detailed to the HF Guidance Group. This 

spreads responsibility among the members of the Technical Guidance Groups to prevent one 

person from shouldering a disproportionate level of responsibility and to ensure a diversity of 

feedback. 

The Legal Advisory Group will play the same consultative role and will provide feedback on the 

needs of non-scientific and non-technical members of the communities that interact with forensic 

science. Their role will ensure that the technical standards incorporate stakeholder needs and allow 

for the effective application of forensic science in the courts. The Legal Advisory Group will consist 

of judges, attorneys, law enforcement, members of innocence or wrongful conviction groups, and 

members of communities who interact with forensic analyses or interact with forensic investigations. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 99 of 337
Innocence Project, Inc. 

November 26, 2013 

Page 11

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 

Among criminal justice members, a balance between prosecuting and defense attorneys is 

imperative. 

Forensic Science Standards Advisory Committee 

The Forensic Science Standards Advisory Committee (FSAC) will operate as the coordinating body 

for the Guidance Groups, the Advisory Committee to the NIST Director, and will be the central 

body coordinating public feedback. The FSAC will be composed of the co-chairs of each disciplinespecific and each cross-disciplinary Guidance Group as well as NIST scientists with expertise in the 

general scientific areas of study specified by each Technical Guidance Group. This composition 

allows standards to be shared and reviewed by a diverse set of scientific and technical leaders and 

ensure that measurement standards and other research developed by NIST in the interest of 

improving forensic science standards is applied to the standards that are set. This body will 

recommend standards to the NIST Director for publication by NIST. 

Ensuring Transparency in Standard Setting Processes 

Necessity for Transparency 

In order for the NIST Guidance Groups to develop technical standards with strong scientific 

foundations and proven practicability that will benefit all criminal justice stakeholders, it is important 

that the process is characterized by a high level of transparency and openness. Public engagement 

can enhance the work done by Guidance Groups and the FSAC and can improve the quality of their 

decisions. When the decision-making and standards development process is transparent, it will 

ultimately lead to the creation of technical standards that are widely and readily accepted by all 

stakeholders. At the heart of transparency lies the inherent need for collaboration and public 

engagement where possible. A combination of extant law and policy can provide the transparency 

measures that promote public engagement and quick disclosure of information for NIST Guidance 

Groups. A commitment to these measures will not only improve public trust in the work of the 

FSAC and Guidance Groups, but it would speed and encourage adoption of these standards by state 

and local forensic science providers. 

The NIST-DOJ MOU describes, as a part of NIST’s stand-alone responsibility, that it will “continue 

to develop methods for forensic science measurements and will validate select existing forensic 

science standards,” 5 thereby creating test and measurement standards. NIST has also been 

designated to absorb the present day FBI Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) and establish 

 

5 “Possible Models for the Administration and Support of Discipline-Specific Guidance Groups for Forensic Science; 

Notice of Inquiry” 78 Federal Register 188 (27 September 2013), pp. 59655. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 100 of 337
Innocence Project, Inc. 

November 26, 2013 

Page 12

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 

Guidance Groups as part of the coordinated effort designed to standardize national guidance for 

forensic science practitioners at all levels of government.6

According to the Notice of Inquiry (NOI), Guidance Groups are to operate with 

“[t]ransparency/openness, balance of interest of stakeholders, due process for stakeholder input, 

consensus process for decision making, and an appeals process.”7 These principles are also the 

attributes by which voluntary consensus standards bodies are defined by OMB Circular A-119.8

 

Circular A-119 provides guidance to Federal agencies on the implementation of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTA). 

Transparency in the Standards Development Process 

In the proposed model for the structure of the Guidance Groups under the FSAC, standards will be 

developed through two paths. The Technical Groups will oversee Subcommittees that will develop 

standards by forensic science disciplines. The cross-disciplinary Guidance Groups will not have a 

Subcommittee structure and are themselves are at the standard development level. According to the 

NTTA, technical standards must be developed in collaboration with SDOs which incorporate a 

process for public comment and suggestions by outside groups. Therefore, the work at the 

standards development level represents the entry point for an open, transparent process that 

embodies SDO principles such as balance of interest and an appeals processes. 

Statutory Authority for SDOs 

Based on its statutory authority, NIST is authorized to “cooperate with other departments and 

agencies of the Federal Government, with industry, with State and local governments, with the 

governments of other nations and international organizations, and with private organizations in 

establishing standard practices, codes, specifications, and voluntary consensus standards” and to 

“advise government and industry on scientific and technical problems.”9 However, NIST’s ability to 

establish standards has been limited by the NTTA which directs NIST such that:10 

“(1) In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection, all 

Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are 

 

6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 

8 Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-119 Revised, Feburary 10, 1998, available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119 (last accessed, October 24, 2013). 9 NIST Organic Act, Title 15 USC §272(b)(10-11): 

1015 USC § 272, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 101 of 337
Innocence Project, Inc. 

November 26, 2013 

Page 13

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 

developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such 

technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities 

determined by the agencies and departments. “

(2) Consultation; participation.—In carrying out paragraph (1) of this subsection, 

Federal agencies and departments shall consult with voluntary, private sector, 

consensus standards bodies and shall, when such participation is in the public 

interest and is compatible with agency and departmental missions, authorities, 

priorities, and budget resources, participate with such bodies in the development 

of technical standards. “11

The NTTA revised the NIST authority to require it to use technical standards that are developed or 

adopted by a consensus standards body or a standards development organization (SDO). The 

NTTA provides the following exception: 

“(3) Exception.—If compliance with paragraph (1) of this subsection is 

inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical, a Federal agency or 

department may elect to use technical standards that are not developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies if the head of each such agency 

or department transmits to the Office of Management and Budget an 

explanation of the reasons for using such standards. Each year, beginning with 

fiscal year 1997, the Office of Management and Budget shall transmit to 

Congress and its committees a report summarizing all explanations received in 

the preceding year under this paragraph.”12

 

Therefore, unless NIST deems it otherwise impractical, it must use standards that are either 

developed by or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Under the NTTA, the 

Subcommittees for Technical Groups and the cross-disciplinary Guidance Groups in the proposed 

model must develop standards in an open, transparent fashion. Therefore, the core of the standards 

development process begins with complete transparency, opportunities for public engagement, and 

participation that enables the development of high quality standards that will lead to wide adoption. 

 

11 Public Law 104-113, National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, Sec. 12. Standards Conformity. (d)(1-2). 

12 Public Law 104-113, National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, Sec. 12. Standards Conformity. (d)(3). 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 102 of 337
Innocence Project, Inc. 

November 26, 2013 

Page 14

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 

Selection of Standards Development Organizations 

We recognize that the NIST Guidance Group NOI posed a number of questions regarding the use 

of Standards Development Organizations (SDOs). We understand that NIST has had a long history 

working with SDOs such as ASTM.13 Due to the expertise and vast experience of NIST in working 

with a diverse array of SDOs, we do not name specific SDOs here and are confident that NIST will 

determine the best applicable SDO for each Guidance Group or Subcommittee. 

Reviewing Technical Standards 

In the suggested model for NIST Guidance Groups, the process begins at the standards 

development level and includes a hierarchy to ensure that developed technical standards both adhere 

to strict scientific principles and also benefit all stakeholders in the criminal justice system. Since the 

points of entry for SDOs are different for the Technical Guidance Groups and the cross-disciplinary 

Guidance Groups, the review processes are different. 

The Subcommittees under the Technical Guidance Groups deliver the technical standards to the 

appropriate Technical Guidance Group for review. The Technical Guidance Group can either 1) 

approve the technical standards and forward the technical standards to FSAC or 2) find that 

improvements are needed and send the standards back to the Subcommittee along with comments 

explaining their decision. The Technical Guidance Groups should not have the ability to alter the 

Subcommittee’s technical standards, as this task is required by the NTTA to be conducted through 

the SDO process. Although the Subcommittees included participation from the public, the decision 

to approve or send the standards back to the corresponding Subcommittee for improvements 

should be made entirely by Forensic Science and Relevant Experts to ensure complete scientific 

integrity in the technical standards. 

Once the technical standards are forwarded by the Technical Guidance Groups to the FSAC, the 

decision to recommend these technical standards for publication by NIST is similar; the FSAC can 

either 1) approve the technical standards or 2) find that improvements are needed and send the 

standards back to the Technical Guidance Group and the corresponding Subcommittee along with 

comments explaining its decision. Likewise, the FSAC should not have the ability to alter the 

technical standards. 

 

13 ASTM.org, “NIST & ASTM International,” Standardization News, January/February 2008, available at 

http://www.astm.org/SNEWS/JANUARY_2008/p_ausura2_jf08.html (last accessed, October 25, 2013).

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 103 of 337
Innocence Project, Inc. 

November 26, 2013 

Page 15

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 

The cross-disciplinary Guidance Groups develop technical standards with SDOs. The standards 

development process will incorporate the consultation of the Guidance Group Advisors and Legal 

Advisory Group. As standards are being developed, both cross-disciplinary Guidance Groups will 

share drafts of the technical standards being developed with the Guidance Group Advisors and 

Legal Advisory Group. These two bodies will respond with feedback on improving QI and HF 

Guidance Group technical standards to improve their application to specific disciplines or to 

improve their effective use in the courts. Drafts of standards will be shared and improved until the 

SDO processes at the QI and HF Guidance Group levels are complete. 

Once the technical standards are forwarded by the cross-disciplinary Guidance Groups to the FSAC, 

the recommendation for publication by NIST is similar; FSCA can either 1) approve the technical 

standards or 2) find that improvements are needed and send the standards back to the crossdisciplinary Guidance Groups along with comments explaining its decision. Likewise, the FSAC 

should not have the ability to alter the technical standards. 

Certain measures can ensure that stakeholders and the general public understand the technical 

standard review process taken by Guidance Groups (Technical, QI, and HF Guidance Groups). In

order to incorporate a sufficient level of transparency, the Guidance Groups will be required to post 

all technical standards, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and other materials to a NIST website 

location in advance of its meeting. Stakeholders and public engagement does not stop at the 

standards development process, as it is useful for the public to monitor the actions taken by the 

Guidance Groups and view how the technical standards pass through Guidance Groups. A certain 

level of transparency ensures that the Guidance Groups are reviewing technical standards forwarded 

by the Subcommittees in a diligent, timely manner. Stakeholders and the public can advocate for a 

quick response from Guidance Groups when the meeting agendas and result of technical standards 

deliberations are posted online. 

Transparency at the FSAC 

The Notice of Establishment in the Federal Register states that the National Commission on 

Forensic Science (NCFS) will be established pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA).14 Given that the NCFS will operate under FACA, the Forensic Science Standards Advisory 

Committee (FSAC), which is responsible for finalizing and approving technical standards and 

recommending their publication to the Director of NIST, should operate under FACA or FACAlike terms. By working under FACA or FACA-like terms, the FSAC will become an ideal body that 

 

14 “Notice of Establishment of the National Commission on Forensic Science and Solicitation of Applications for 

Commission Membership” 78 Federal Register 36 (22 February 2013), pp. 12356 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 104 of 337
Innocence Project, Inc. 

November 26, 2013 

Page 16

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 

oversees forensic science improvements in the United States and fosters standards setting of the 

highest quality through an independent, conflict-free, and transparent process. 

Advisory groups subject to FACA are managed by very specific rules and regulations that dictate 

how they function. A notice to the public in the Federal Register is required when a discretionary 

advisory committee is established, renewed, or reestablished; and when a new committee is created, 

the notice must include a description of the purpose of the advisory committee and affirm that the 

advisory committee is necessary and in the public interest. Additionally FACA requires open, preannounced meetings; public access to discussions, deliberations, records and documents; 

opportunity for the public to provide written (and often oral) comments; fairly balanced 

membership; and the evaluation of conflicts of interest for certain members. 

Merely establishing an advisory committee or group does not trigger FACA; the agency must be 

seeking advice and/or recommendations and must exercise actual management or control over the 

committee or group. While there is no precise legal formula to determine when an agency has 

crossed this threshold, the General Services Administration (GSA), the agency responsible for 

FACA compliance, provides a list of factors to determine if FACA applies.15 Additionally, there are 

public accessibility provisions to information generated by the advisory committee such as open and 

transparent meetings, structured public comment, and stakeholder input. All committee minutes and 

materials must be made public. Committee meetings are noticed, public, and transcripts must be 

made available.16 All of these transparency measures can be incorporated in the absence of FACA 

designation. Additionally, the FSAC shall create a set of bylaws by which it will operate and can 

codify its transparency practices. For example, the FSAC shall not consider and vote upon a set of 

standards at the same meeting. Instead, a standard can be introduced at one meeting, deliberated at 

a second meeting, and the vote for approval can take place at a third meeting. Between the first and 

third meetings, public comment will be solicited and the FSAC can receive feedback before and after 

the body deliberates on the standards. It is in the interest of the FSAC and Guidance Groups to 

incorporate public comment and transparency measures. The more actively the public is engaged in 

the standards setting process, the more likely it is to adopt or seek the published standards. 

 

15 See: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104514?utm_source=OGP&utm_medium=printradio&utm_term=faca&utm_campaign=shortcuts 16 Section 10. Advisory committee procedures; meetings; notice, publication in Federal Register; regulations; minutes; 

certification; annual report; Federal officer or employee, attendance, Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 

(Public Law 92-463). 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 105 of 337
Innocence Project, Inc. 

November 26, 2013 

Page 17

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 

Conclusion 

The Innocence Project advocates for a forensic science system grounded by scientific standards and 

for excellent research that includes input from a vast array of stakeholders. We are grateful that 

NIST requested public feedback as it reflects the transparent, open process through which 

important forensic science standards that strengthen that criminal justice system should be 

developed. We hope our comments and our suggested structure for the Guidance Group model are 

beneficial for NIST. The Innocence Project believes that the foremost scientific and technical 

expertise and knowledge for developing technical standards resides with the Forensic Science 

Experts, Relevant Experts, researchers and scientists at NIST, and that Guidance Groups will only 

be successful when Forensic Science Experts and Relevant Experts work together to create 

scientifically rigorous and practicable guidance. We eagerly await NIST’s final model for organizing 

the Guidance Groups as it will undoubtedly improve the forensic science disciplines used in the 

criminal justice system. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 Madeline deLone Peter Neufeld Barry Scheck 

 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 106 of 337
Response from Marie E. Durina 

Member, American Society of Forensic Document Examiners 

Associate Member, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Questioned Document Section 

Member, Midwestern Association of Forensic Scientists 

Member, ASTM, Section E.30 (Forensic Science) 

Member, SWGDOC (Scientific Working Group for Forensic Document Examination) 

October 22, 2013 

NIST Response

1. Structure of Guidance Groups:

Given&the&scope&and&principles&of&the&Guidance&Groups&outlined&here,&what&are&structural&models&that&could&best&support&

the&Guidance&Groups,&taking&into&account&the&technical,&policy,&legal,&and&operational&aspects&of&forensic&science?

Structural models based on those that serve the scientific community as well as the legal community would be 

better than those business (profit-based) structures. The majority of forensic work is performed by analysts 

employed by law enforcement agencies with case work generated by criminal investigations. These agencies are 

funded by federal, state, and local government, and not by the sale of products, goods, or services. Therefore it 

would be a huge disservice to the forensic community to force them into a model created for the business industry. 

What&elements&or&models&would&facilitate&the&sharing&of&best&practices&and&uniform&practices&across&the&Guidance&Groups?

Standardizing all of the SWG groups could be a start. Having uniform structure, by laws and procedures would 

make it easier for groups to share their knowledge. Technical and administrative review of best practices by 

interdisciplinary, yet closely related, groups would help the sharing of information. For example, a best practice 

created by the shoe and tire mark impression evidence group could be vetted by members of the document 

examination group and vice versa. 

Are&there&public&policies&or&private§or&initiatives&in&other&countries&that&have&successfully&strengthened&the&nation's&use&

of&forensic&science&by&supporting&the&development&and&propagation&of&forensic&science&consensus&documentary&standards,&

identifying&needs&of&forensic&science&research&and&measurement&standards,&and&verifying&the&scientific&basis&exists&for&each&

discipline?&If&so,&what&are&they?

The European Network of Forensic Science (ENFSI) is an organization that exists in Europe that permits 

membership of analysts from ISO accredited labs. ENFSI is governed by a 5-member Board, elected for 3-year 

terms by the membership of its member laboratories. ENFSI is comprised of 16 separate "Working Groups", each 

separately named (i.e. Analysts who perform handwriting examination and comparison are assigned to the group 

"ENFHEX". More information concerning the goals and structure of ENFSI may be found at these websites: 

http://www.enfsi.eu/about-enfsi and http://www.enfsi.eu/about-enfsi/structure/working-groups 

What&are&the&elements&which&make&existing&forensic&Scientific&Working&Groups&(SWGs)&successful?&

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 107 of 337
Response from Marie E. Durina 

Funding: This allows the SWG members to meet in person at a minimum of twice a year to discuss, write, rework, vet, and finalize necessary standards. 

Dedication: All SWG members are dedicated to the advancement of their science, and must be willing to work to 

achieve this without compensation. SWG members are expected to contribute and generate a great deal of work 

without expecting reward or recognition. 

 Compromise: There are many brilliant examiners in the world, but not all of them have the ability to work well 

with others. A successful SWG group has members who speak their minds, but also listen and are willing to learn 

from others. A successful SWG member is able to see many sides of a single issue and understand the effects any 

decisions may have on multiple additional organizations and users of their work product. SWG members must be 

well-versed in their discipline and able to articulate their knowledge in an effective and efficient manner. They 

must be able to interact successfully with their "customers" at all levels including the legal community, 

government and laboratory administrators, investigators, and other forensic analysts. 

 Smaller Groups: With regard to SWGDOC, we have found that breaking the large group out into smaller "teams" 

of 3-6 analysts and assigning each team a number of work products provided better results than having a large 

group work on a single product at one time. In the early days of SWGDOC all of the members would meet in a 

large room and attempt to wordsmith a single document. Typical of a scenario where there are "too many cooks" 

hours of discussion and arguing members would result in frustration, log jams, or apathy. Much more was 

accomplished at a rapid production rate when the larger group was broken out into smaller teams. 

Are&there&examples&of&best&practices&in&specific&SWGs&that&ought&to&be&replicated&in&Guidance&Groups?&If&so,&what&are&they?

The system used by SWGDOC has worked well for many years. The SWGDOC members meet twice a year at the 

same hotel in Woodbridge, VA. While not a high-end hotel by any means, the chosen site offers the group ample 

space in their meeting room all week and free wireless internet service. At any one meeting, more than half of the 

members are from out of town and stay at the hotel, while the rest commute locally. The entire membership meets 

the first day (Monday) to discuss any broad topics or to vote on any pending issues, but then break out into 

committees consisting of 4 or 5 examiners. It is in these smaller, more manageable groups that the bulk of the 

work gets completed. Each committee is assigned a Presiding Officer who oversees the meeting. The Presiding 

Officer will also coordinate remarks, praises, and criticisms when the work product goes out for comment. A 

committee may have one or multiple tasks to complete during the week. The assigned task(s) usually involves the 

creation of a new standard or the revision of an existing one. When completed, the finished product is presented to 

the entire SWGDOC membership for a vote. If it is accepted, it will then be posted on the SWGDOC website for 

public comment for an additional period of 60 days. All comments are vetted and considered and changes are 

made to the standard where needed. The standard is then adopted by the forensic community. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 108 of 337
Response from Marie E. Durina 

Would&partnership&with&a&standards&development&organization&(SDO)&in&which&the&standard&is&issued&by&the&SDO&present&

any&obstacle&for&participation&by&a&broad&range&of&forensics&science&stakeholders in&the&development&of&a&standard?&&&

We have tried this in the past (with ASTM), and the results have been disastrous. It would definitely be an 

obstacle. 

If&so,&why?

1) Since SDO’s are membership-based, examiners must pay membership fees in order to participate. It has already

been shown that many qualified examiners balk at this idea and will not join. Conversely, many other nonqualified examiners WILL pay the fee and join, just so they can have a paid-for "credential" that they hope will 

give them an air of legitimacy. 

2) SDO’s copyright the standards they produce making it illegal for examiners to openly share the standards with

others in their field, including the courts and other end users. This requirement reduces openness and transparency 

in forensic science. 

3) SDO’s charge a fee for copies of the standards they publish. If an examiner is in court and a judge or an

attorney wants a copy of a standard, the examiner would be required to advise them they must go to an SDO 

website and purchase that standard themselves. This is counter-productive to the field of forensic science and to 

the justice system. 

4) It’s foolhardy for a scientific group to spend an exorbitant amount of time and energy to create a product and

then immediately surrender the intellectually property rights of that product to an SDO who in turn copyrights the 

product and, in turn, "sells" that work product back to those who created it. 

5) SDO’s have no membership criteria; anyone who pays their fee can become a member. This opens the door for

criminals, charlatans, and the untrained to have input concerning a product in which they have limited or no 

knowledge about. 

6) SDO’s can have deleterious voting criteria for their members. One example is ASTM’s “redundant interest”

which is a “member of a committee whose voting interest is already represented on the committee by an official 

voter” In laymen’s terms, this means that if ten forensic scientists work in a laboratory only ONE of those 

scientists is allowed a vote when it comes to adopting standards. This alone is enough to deter most forensic 

scientists from joining an SDO. There is no impetus to join an organization that publishes standards for their field 

when they cannot comment or vote on those standards as they’re being created. 

7) Lastly, since nearly all of the SWG groups self-publish their standards, forcing them into an SDO could have

catastrophic consequences. This has, in fact, proven to be the case in past dealings with an SDO. The SWG group 

would work for months on a standard. After a great deal of discussion, the research, arguing, frustration, and 

comprise, a high quality standard was developed. THEN this finely-tuned work product was submitted to the 

SDO. The SDO then required that it go through yet ANOTHER vetting process. Often, this meant the standards 

was subjected to "sabotage" by other members of that SDO did not have what’s best for the discipline at heart. 

Often, the SDO may contain members not qualified to perform the work. Or it may contain members who think 

they are qualified, but who have no formal training. This results in an inferior, sub-standard, and essentially 

"dumbed down" work product, that has essentially been destroyed by obstructionists. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 109 of 337
Response from Marie E. Durina 

Would&partnership&with&an&SDO&in&which&the&standard&is&issued&by&the&SDO&present&any&obstacle&to&broad&adoption&of&a&

standard?&&If&so,&why?

Partnership with an SDO will delay and obstruct the adoption of any standards due to the mind-numbing and 

tedious vetting and voting requirements imposed on the standard development process by the SDO. The SDO 

adds an unnecessary level of inefficiency to the process of writing, developing, and adopting standards for the 

profession. 

At the present time, nearly all of the existing SWGs currently self-publish their standards. Forcing the SWGs to 

relinquish their work products to an SDO will result in disaster. 

Would&a&feeFbased&membership&model&run&through&a¬FforFprofit&organization&(similar&to&the&National&Conference&of&

Weights&and&Measures)&present&a&significant&obstacle&for&participation?

It will be difficult, if not impossible, to persuade examiners to add another fee-based organization to their annual 

budget, especially if the organization has no membership criteria and allows anyone to join. If, however, 

legitimate, fully trained, examiners are allowed to create membership criteria (as does the American Academy of 

Forensic Science) this might be acceptable. In the case of questioned document examination (QDE), with which 

this examiner is familiar, there is a large contingent of people whom are not properly trained yet pretend to be 

document examiners. If these charlatans were allowed to become members, NO legitimate document examiner 

would join. If that happened the organization would not have any of the legitimate stakeholders and therefore 

could not function effectively. In addition, if this theoretical organization required that laboratories, like the FBI’s 

QDE section for instance, only have one vote, even though they have over 20 examiners, no legitimate examiner 

would join. 

If&the&Guidance&Groups&followed&a&feeFbased&membership&model,&are&there&appropriatelyFtiered&systems&for&fees&that&

would&prevent&“pricing&out”&organizations,&including&individuals?

Imposing any fee will be problematic. Many laboratories will not participate and the pool of participants would 

be limited only to those who were willing to pay their own way. 

Other&than&a&privatized&model,&are&there&other&means&to&maintain&governance or&coordinating&body&in&the&long&term?&If&

possible,&please&give&examples&of&existing&structures&and&their&positive&and&negative&attributes.

The SWG groups are currently very high-functioning groups. These are dedicated, hardworking examiners who 

devote enormous amounts of time and energy to their discipline free of charge. Nearly all of the SWG’s selfpublish their standards, have always done so, and they’ve never had issues with acceptance. A few include the 

Scientific Working Group for Shoeprint and Tire Tread Evidence (SWGTREAD), the Scientific Working Group 

on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study, and Technology (SWGFAST), the Scientific Working Group for Firearms and 

Toolmarks (SWGGUN), and the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM). The 

Scientific Working Group for Forensic Document Examination (SWGDOC) created or updated every standard in 

the QDE field and, until 2012, only used ASTM (an SDO) as its publishing vehicle. After years of creating 

standards only to relinquish all rights to them to ASTM, and additionally be forced to pay for them, SWGDOC 

ultimately decided to self-publish their standards. 

A negative of the SWG’s is their over-all lack of continuity. Each SWG functions as a single entity with its own 

bylaws, membership criteria, and voting rules. It would be far more efficient to streamline the existing SWG’s and 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 110 of 337
Response from Marie E. Durina 

get them all on the same page than it would be to create over 20 separate organizations, or force the current SWG 

members into an SDO. 

2. Impact of Guidance Groups:

Given&that&the&Guidance&Groups&cannot&mandate&the&adoption&of&standards,&what&can&they&do&to&best&leverage&their&

position&and&encourage&adoption?&

These groups will HAVE to have the support of their respective forensic communities. Having qualified 

examiners participate in the process will help persuade other qualified examiners to accept the work product. If 

organizations in a forensic field adopt the standards the more likely they will be accepted by their members. 

To&what&extent&does&membership&and transparency&impact&possible&adoption&of&guidance&at&the&state&and&local&level?

Membership is important because without enough stakeholders involved there will be no acceptance. 

Transparency is important because forensic examiners want to see the standards during their creation and be able 

to comment on them as they see fit. 

Are&there&best&practices&or&models&to&consider&with®ard&to&a&structure&that&would&encourage&effective communication&

with&the&scientific&community&to&explore&research&gaps&and&aid&in&recognizing&research&priorities?

In June, 2013 NIST sponsored a symposium in Handwriting Analysis and Comparison that drew all the known 

experts together to present research and ideas about forensic document examination over a 3-day period. This was 

web-cast all over the world and allowed for brainstorming by participants at all levels. Venues like this might be 

again considered to explore research gaps and priorities. 

How&should&NIST&researchers&engage&with&the&Guidance&Groups&in&support&of&the&goal&to&strengthen&the&nation's&use&of&

forensic&science&by&supporting&the&development&and&propagation&of&forensic&science&consensus&documentary&standards,&

identifying&needs&of&forensic&science&research&and&measurement&standards,&and&verifying&the&scientific&basis&exists&for&each&

discipline?

NIST researchers should be included as members of specific SWG (or guidance) groups. Once NIST members, 

they can attend meetings, participate in discussions, and make recommendations for future plans. If a researcher is 

a member of a particular SWG group he or she will have vested interest in seeing that the group succeeds and 

accomplishes its objectives. 

NIST researchers should contact forensic scientists actively performing research projects. By contacting these 

examiners the researchers can gain knowledge about these projects, ask questions about the goals of the research, 

and give advice on how to better implement the research. 

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups:

Who&are&the&stakeholders&who&should&be&represented&on&the&Guidance&Groups?&

The majority of the stakeholders should be legitimate, fully trained examiners, currently working in their 

respective field. Some form of criteria regarding training, experience, and knowledge must be considered for 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 111 of 337
Response from Marie E. Durina 

membership. These majority stakeholders should have final say on any and all decisions concerning the standards 

they write, the research they conduct, and the treatise they produce. They are the real players in the game here, 

they do the work, they are the experts and it’s their reputations on the line when their results are questioned in 

court or otherwise. 

The next level of stakeholder should include those in the legal and academic fields e.g. attorney’s judges, 

professors, statisticians, and researchers. 

A third level of stakeholder should include those individuals with an indirect interest such as vendors, instrument 

technicians, students, administrators, and the general public. 

What&steps&can&NIST&take&to&ensure&appropriately&broad&representation&within&the&Guidance&Groups?&

The major stakeholders could be divided into Federal, State, and local government examiners, as well as private 

examiners. The same could be done with the lower tiered stakeholders. Membership should represent geographic 

areas throughout the U.S. Members from other neighboring countries should also be encouraged to join and or 

participate. 

What&does&balanced&representation&mean&and&how&can&it&be&achieved?

Equal numbers of Federal, State, or Local government examiners. Equal numbers of examiners from various 

regions of the United States. 

What&is&the&best&way&to&engage&organizations&playing&a&role&in&forensic&science,&standards&development&and&practice?

First and foremost the standards development organization has to attract legitimate, trained, competent examiners 

in its representative field. If that is done the forensic science organizations will become engaged and so will the 

forensic examiners in practice. Forensic professionals will not participate in a group wherein they do not have the 

final word on the product they produce. They also will not participate in a group consisting of untrained, 

illegitimate examiners. 

How&should&interested&parties who&may¬&be&direct&participants&in&Guidance&Groups,&engage&in&a&meaningful&way&to&have&

an&impact&on&issues&in&front&of&the&Guidance&Groups?

Stay abreast of information posted on the guidance group website. Get on the email list for said guidance group. 

Participate in any online discussions or webcast symposiums. 

To&what&extent&and&in&what&ways&must&the&Federal&government,&as&well&as&state,&local,&tribal&and&territorial&governments&be&

involved&at&the&outset?

Federal funding for the groups should continue. The state and local governments must recognize the importance 

of these groups and continue to allow their employee’s to participate. 

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups:

Should&all&of&the¤t&forensic&Scientific&Working&Groups&(SWGs)&transition&to&Guidance&Groups?

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 112 of 337
Response from Marie E. Durina 

Although that decision should be left up to the individual SWG groups, the need and importance of uniformity and 

standardization should be stressed. Willingness by the SWGs to transition will be easy to attain if the future 

guidance groups offer a solid platform for creating standards that doesn’t disrupt or destroy their current standards 

production., 

Are&there&broader&groupings&of&forensic&science&disciplines&that&could&form&the&basis&of&Guidance&Groups&than&the¤t

group&of&twentyFone&SWGs?&&If&so,&what&are&those&groupings?&&

I am a member of many of the leading forensic science organizations in my discipline; however, I am not familiar 

enough with the other SWGs to comment. 

Is&there&a&need&for&a&cross&disciplinary&functional&approach&(i.e.&statistical&analysis)&and&how&could&the&Guidance&Groups&be&

structured&to&best&address&that&need?

I do not believe there is a need for such an approach, but an approach could look like this. 

Groups could be separated into Analytical and Impression forensic groups. The analytical group could include; 

Drugs, Toxicology, Implied Consent, et al. And the Impression group could include; Questioned Documents, 

Firearms, Latent Prints, and Shoeprint and Tire Tread. If this occurred these groups would still have to be broken 

down into sub-groups. This would be necessary because even though they share some similarities each discipline 

is still unique and has its own special needs and nuances. Having three separate groups come together at one large 

meeting would be a waste of time (and likely of funding). 

The more closely related disciplines, like the Impression Groups (as discussed earlier) could be involved in cross 

disciplinary technical review of work product. For example, the members of the Latent Print group would be 

allowed to have technical input on a standard created by the Questioned Document group. The Questioned 

Document group, however, would have the final say on the end product. The unrelated disciplines could be 

allowed input on each other’s work product in an administrative capacity, e.g. spelling, grammar, clarity. 

To&what&extent&do&Guidance&Groups&need&to&support&different&forensic&science&disciplines&differently&from&one&another?

There should definitely be support, but to what extent is a subjective question. This examiner envisions the 

process like this: 

The more closely related disciplines, like the Impression Groups (as discussed earlier) could be involved in cross 

disciplinary technical review of work product. For example the members of the Latent Print group would be 

allowed to have technical input on a standard created by the Questioned Document group. The Questioned 

Document group, however, would have the final say on the end product. The unrelated disciplines could be 

allowed input on each other’s work product in an administrative capacity, e.g. spelling, grammar, clarity. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 113 of 337
Response from Heidi Eldridge 

November 7, 2013

Dear Susan Ballou:

This letter is in response to the Federal Register solicitation from the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) seeking input for the administration and support of disciplinespecific guidance groups that would promote scientific validity and reliability in forensic science.

Throughout the solicitation document, the Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) are referred to as 

a possible blueprint for moving forward with the Guidance Groups (GGs). While they are 

treated as a single entity in the solicitation, I believe it is important to distinguish between them. 

In recent years, criticism has been leveled at the SWGs, accusing them of being ineffective, of 

being an “old boys’ club”, of being nothing more than an excuse for friends to get together and 

hang out at taxpayer expense, and of forming their recommendations based upon their own 

opinions, without reference to practitioners or other stakeholders.

Before moving forward with the formation of GGs that may be based upon the old SWGs, I 

believe it is important to examine as a model one SWG that has addressed these criticisms, 

taken them into account, and provided a model of operations that avoids these pitfalls. Not all 

SWGs operate under the same rules. In fact, in 2011 and 2012, all of the SWGs were in the 

process of writing new unified bylaws that would bring transparency, consistency, and higher 

quality to all of the SWGs. These bylaws were nearly complete at the time information about 

the new GGs was released, and were largely based upon the bylaws of the Scientific Working 

Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study, and Technology (SWGFAST). SWGFAST has long 

been an organization committed to transparency, excellence, and thoughtful consideration of 

stakeholders’ comments. While it is not a perfect organization by any means, the SWGFAST 

(and draft unified) bylaws would be an excellent place to start in designing the GGs, and will be 

referred to throughout these comments.

The solicitation queries whether all of the current forensic SWGs should transition to GGs. This 

is an important question. Several of the existing SWGs have invested a great deal of time and 

effort into providing standards and guidance to their disciplines and this work should not be 

discarded, nor should the current memberships be summarily disbanded. That being said, I 

don’t believe that all members of the current SWGs should be transferred over to GGs 

wholesale. Some of them are very large, while others are so small as to be ineffective.

I propose that each of the SWGs should be examined on its own merit. Its track-record 

(including frequency of meetings, number and quality of documents produced, and membership 

number and makeup) should be evaluated to determine whether it should continue, and in what 

numbers. If a SWG is selected to transition to a GG, the current membership should be given 

the first opportunity to apply for any positions available on the new GG. If any positions remain 

once this process is complete, they should then be offered to the community at large.

In selecting members for the new GGs, several factors should be taken into account. First, a 

balance should be maintained between practitioners, managers, academics, researchers, 

lawyers, and judges. While lawyers and judges should be present in smaller numbers, as they 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 114 of 337
Response from Heidi Eldridge 

do not have an intimate understanding of the operational needs and pressures of the forensic 

science community, they should have some representation on these GGs because they have 

insight into the needs of the legal community that forensic science serves. I also feel it is vital 

that both bench level practitioners and managers be included in the makeup of the groups. 

While managers are making the decisions for their labs, many have not actually done casework 

in many years and have lost perspective on the challenges that are faced on a day-to-day basis. 

Additionally, it is imperative that representatives from federal, state, and local agencies be 

represented in the GGs. Many small agencies already fear that policies will be handed down to 

them and compliance will be forced (whether through funding opportunities, accreditation 

standards, or court mandates), and that they will have no say in the matter. To get buy-in on 

standards and guidelines, these agencies must feel that they have a voice.

Each member of the GGs should be selected based upon what they can offer to the GG. Their 

past record of contribution to the forensic science community (through publications, research, 

teaching, participation on other committees, specific experience, etc) should all be considered, 

as well as the niche they can fill (practitioner, manager, state, local, federal, academic, lawyer, 

judge). One criterion that should not be used to select members is strict seniority. The current 

climate of forensic science is one of change and cutting-edge research. While many of the 

senior generation of examiners / managers have embraced this change, many others have not. 

The GGs must be made up of innovative thinkers who are willing to reform the way forensic 

science is done, not people whose mantra seems to be, “That’s the way we’ve always done it, 

so that’s the way it should be done”. Naturally, I am not arguing against the inclusion of senior 

managers or examiners on the GGs – I am merely suggesting that their seniority should not be 

given weight in the decision. All interested persons who meet the desired criteria should be 

given strong consideration – too often it seems that committees are selected for people who 

have “years of experience”, but in the case of a discipline that is trying to evolve, those years of 

experience may actually work against the goals of the GGs.

Regarding multi-disciplinary GGs, I can see a benefit to this. Some of the SWGs, as mentioned 

previously, are very small, and do not need to have their own dedicated GG. Likewise, critics 

and the NAS report have both repeatedly stressed the need for standardization across 

disciplines on things such as terminology, reporting language, and codes of ethics. One barrier 

to this standardization is that each SWG meets independently and comes up with its own 

language, standards, etc. On the other hand, each discipline does have issues, needs, and 

challenges that are uniquely their own and it would be a waste of time for the members of one 

discipline to sit around while the members of another argued issues that do not impact the first

at all.

I propose a hybrid model to address this duality of needs. There should be, within the GGs, 

groupings of similar disciplines, for example, a Pattern Evidence GG, which would include 

disciplines such as Latent Prints, Firearms, Toolmarks, Questioned Documents, Tire Track and 

Footwear. The Pattern Evidence GG would meet all at the same time and in the same place, 

but each specific discipline would be treated as a sub-committee. In this way, the larger group 

could meet for part of the time to discuss issues that affect them all, while each discipline could 

also have a portion of the meeting to themselves to hash out issues that affect their discipline 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 115 of 337
Response from Heidi Eldridge 

alone. This would make the most efficient use of meeting time, while allowing global issues to 

be discussed by all impacted parties, rather than wasting time reinventing the wheel, as it were, 

as each discipline comes up with their own different definition of “individualization”, for example. 

Using this model, smaller disciplines could be accommodated by simply having them only 

attend a portion of the meeting, so long as the full group discussions were confined to a day or 

two, rather than being spread out throughout the meeting.

The size of the GGs must be carefully constructed to maximize diversity and effectiveness, 

while minimizing expenditure. Within each GG, there must be room to accommodate 

representatives of all of the groups mentioned above. Additionally, a larger group allows for the 

formation of sub-committees, which means that several projects can be worked upon at once. 

Without sub-committees, each GG might only be able to prepare one or two documents in a 

week-long meeting, while many more may be accomplished otherwise. SWGFAST at last count 

had 40 members. While this is a very large number, particularly with budgeting issues, 

something closer to 20 seems not unreasonable. If each “main” forensic discipline was allotted 

20 members, and each “small” discipline was given 5 seats on the larger GG (such as the 

proposed Pattern Evidence Guidance Group), I believe it would be possible to represent all 

necessary groups, have enough people to get work done, and curtail spending to the maximum 

extent possible.

Communication with non-GG members must be easy and bi-directional. The GGs should have 

a public website on which the names and contact information of members, dates of meetings, 

deadlines for membership applications and public commentary, and documents produced 

should all be readily available. Interested parties must be allowed to comment on documents 

before they are adopted and have a mechanism for receiving feedback on those comments. 

Each comment must be thoughtfully considered by the GG prior to adoption of the document. 

SWGFAST has an excellent mechanism already in place for this process, which should be 

adopted by the GGs (under this mechanism, it is required that every publicly submitted 

comment be addressed by the subcommittee responsible for the document, and every 

submitting individual be personally provided with feedback regarding whether or not their 

comment was incorporated, and why). 

Similarly, the community should have a forum for making recommendations of topics they would 

like to see addressed. If the GGs are going to represent the needs of the forensic science 

community, there needs to be a mechanism by which that community can tell the GGs what is 

of greatest concern to them at the time, and on what topics they are most wishing for guidance. 

These suggestions can then be incorporated into the agenda for the next meeting.

One of the functions of the GGs should be to make recommendations for research needs, and 

to review current research in the field. Ideally, these recommendations should be updated at 

least annually. It would be nice if a summary was also released each year (on the website) of 

the publications that have come out that year that address each of the recommended areas. 

This will help to equip practitioners and lawyers with the latest research that has been done in 

pertinent areas that are frequently addressed in court. It will also provide managers with a tool 

for regularly updating their training manuals with the latest research.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 116 of 337
Response from Heidi Eldridge 

GGs should ideally meet twice a year. This is how often SWGFAST met, and it was frequent

enough that it was possible to keep up with current topics, but not so often that members were 

struggling to get approval from their home agencies to be away.

The solicitation queried regarding whether a fee-based model of membership would be effective 

for sustaining the GGs. My concern regarding incorporating fees is that the SWGs have 

historically struggled to spread awareness of their documents and to get buy-in from agencies to 

actually implement their suggestions, and the SWG documents are currently available free of 

charge. If one were to begin charging a fee to access these documents, it may be even more 

difficult to get agencies to use them.

One possible way to mitigate this would be to offer some perks to membership that make it 

attractive (such as the National Conference of Weights and Measures mentioned in the 

solicitation does), or to bind the GG recommendations to accreditation standards such that they 

must be implemented to obtain accreditation. If fees were implemented, they should be done in 

such a way that large agencies, small agencies, and even individuals were all able to afford 

them. Perhaps it could be done such that there is a low price for an individual membership, a 

slightly higher one for a small agency (less than 5 employees?), a still larger one for a mediumsized agency, and so on. It is unclear whether this model would generate sufficient revenues to 

sustain the GGs. Were there not funds allocated for the maintenance of the GGs in the charter 

for the Commission? There should not be any fees associated with membership on a GG. The 

people who are selected to serve on the GG should be selected because they are well-suited to 

contribute to the aims of the GG, by position, knowledge of the field or contributions to the field. 

There should not be even the slightest impression of “pay to play” where those with deep 

pockets are invited to participate and others are not.

Finally, because the membership of the GGs will necessarily be limited, yet other subject matter 

experts may from time to time have valuable information to contribute to GG discussions, there 

should be a mechanism for inviting “guests” to GG meetings. These guests would be invited for 

a particular date to give a presentation, or contribute in some other way, and would be brought 

to the meetings at the expense of the GG budget. They would not be given voting privileges, 

but would be there solely to contribute some specialized information for a limited time.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to voice my suggestions for the formation of the 

Guidance Groups. If you have any questions regarding any of my suggestions, please do not 

hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Heidi Eldridge, MS, CLPE

Forensic Scientist II

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 117 of 337
Response from Sandra Enslow 

Ms. Susan Ballou November 12, 2013

Program Manager, Forensic Sciences

Law Enforcement Standards Office/NIST

100 Bureau Drive, Mailstop 8102

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Dear Ms Ballou – 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide our perspective on the appropriate model for NIST administration 

and support of discipline-specific Guidance Groups. As managers of the only scholarly collaboration 

between Forensic Artists and their related colleagues, we appreciate this opportunity to present our 

responses to the Notice of Inquiry. 

We want to provide some background data on our discipline in order to bring you up to speed on the state of 

our field. There are currently 28 full time forensic art units employing 53 Forensic Artists within the U.S. 

Most of these forensic artists are trained in the full scope of forensic art. This includes composite sketches, 

post mortem images, facial reconstruction and image clarification. In addition there are another 150 

individuals who are working within law enforcement at all levels, Medical Examiners Offices and other 

educational organizations who have another position and in addition create composites sketches. 

Forensic artists require specialized education and training beyond possessing natural artistic skills. The 

forensic artist uses a scientific knowledge base that is derived from such diverse fields such as psychology, 

criminology, sociology, anatomy, anthropology, and medicine when interviewing a witness to drawing a 

composite, to reconstructing a face from a skull or creating a post mortem drawing for purposes of 

identification of the unidentified. 

We envision the NIST administration and support of Guidance Groups as a critical opportunity for our 

discipline to establish best and uniform practices currently not available for Forensic Art practitioners. 

In 2009, a SWG effort was initiated and brought to the International Association for Identification, however 

the IAI withdrew support for reasons never formally documented. Ms. Catyana Skory Falsetti, the chair of 

that effort, then established the Forensic Artists Discussion Group on the Professional Discussion Site 

LinkedIn as a means by which practicing forensic artists could share ideas and remain cognizant of current 

research. 

Ms. Falsetti and I created the National List of Government Agencies with Forensic Artists, listing only those 

who wanted to participate. The list has been distributed at law enforcement and forensic conferences to 

demonstrate the wide reaching and availability of forensic artists. These forensic artists are practitioners 

who work directly with law enforcement in order to assist in matters pertaining to human identification. 

Between the members of the LinkedIn Discussion Group and the National List there are more members 

(213) than either in the AAFS (2) or in the IAI (104). We see the Guidance Group model as an exciting 

opportunity for all Forensic Artists to be organized under a single group working toward uniform and best 

standards under the supervision of NIST and DOJ.

At the AAFS, 2011 in Chicago, Mr. John Paul Jones of NIST advised me to demonstrate that there is a 

compelling and significant interest for Forensic Artists to unify under a single entity. We strongly believe that 

the National List of Government Agencies with Forensic Artists and the LinkedIn Discussion Group have 

demonstrated that such persuasive interests has been established and that forensic artists are looking for 

unification and uniform practices that will represent our professional future. We don’t want to be overlooked

in this exciting and new era for forensic science and look forward to participating fully in this new future 

forward via NIST and NIJ. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 118 of 337
Response from Sandra Enslow 

Respectfully,

Sandra Enslow, BA Catyana Skory Falsetti, MFS

Graphic Arts Coordinator, Forensic Artist Special Projects, Instructor, Forensic Artist

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department CSI Academy of Florida

Associate Member, AAFS Associate Member, AAFS

Addressing Issues for Guidance Groups

1. Structure of Guidance Groups

Gathering a group of practitioners who represent a cross section of the entire discipline is an ideal model. 

Elements to assist in sharing best practices - 

A strictly NIST monitored Guidance Group website would be a good resource for not only sharing best & 

uniform practices. 

• On this website, offer a boilerplate(s) for a GG. This would support those needing to justify

procedures in the GG startup to contentious participants wanting to re-invent the wheel.

• List the finalized GG Standards for each discipline. This should be easy to find and list each

forensic science discipline, so that anyone can find the “final say” as to how something is done.

NIST would be the most appropriate organization to assist with handling final GG documents and 

housing the above mentioned website.

The National Policing Improvement Agency of Wales has created a document that is a Facial Identification 

Guidance that was created in 2009. This has extensive explanation for the organization and function of 

facial identification, which includes forensic art. The International Association of Identification has created a 

model of certifying forensic artists and also a Standards and Guidelines for Forensic Art and Facial 

Identification that was finalized in 2010, that Catyana Skory Falsetti (nee Sawyer) and I were a part of. 

Partnership with a SDO who is non-partisan and focused on the betterment of the field would be ideal. It 

would be imperative for this SDO to be open to gaining and understanding of the field in which they are 

overseeing and that there are no fiscal or political issues that would overshadow the betterment of the 

profession.

Maintaining coordination in the long term--

Any group or organization that maybe considered for oversight of the GGs must have a track record of 

successfully handling such responsibility. (Again, I consider NIST or ASTM a neutral and positive authority 

with a great track record.)

With some disciplines, new technology breakthroughs will mean that some must continue to caucus. While 

others, such as Forensic Art, may only need to caucus a limited number of times.

However, there should be a source, perhaps at NIST, where practitioners can come and raise awareness of 

something new in their discipline that maybe would require the establishment of another guidance group for 

any given discipline.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 119 of 337
Response from Sandra Enslow 

A fee-based membership may cause a loss in participation unless a benefit is shown to be a member. 

Depending on the cost of the fee the potential members may not be able to participate if their department 

does not fund it or if there is no visible value in the membership. 

2. Impact of Guidance Groups

How can the GGs encourage adoption of what they develop?

Perhaps it should be a GG obligation to identify who makes the decisions about the use of their disciplines

and how to reach those decision makers. It is more than encourage adopting – it is to influence to adopt. 

Reaching decision makers within an organization is vital. The value of those who follow the guidelines 

must be shown through the legal system. Those with a certain education or certification, or one who can 

demonstrate their methods are transparent. Those who follow these guidelines should be demonstrated as 

more valuable to those in power to hire individuals, such as the IACP or the NSA.

A campaign of web and/or print that notifies organizations of a discipline’s GG consensus would be of value. 

Highlighting a website, through ASTM or NIST, that houses those results would be good – these 

organizations are neutral and effective. NIST has a good track record and this bodes well.

This will mean also reaching out at conferences – educational, forensic science and law enforcement.

Organizations want best practices. Unfortunately, their SME (subject matter expert) maybe using less than 

best practices and unless the organization is made aware it may continue. At a minimum, the organization 

will encourage those changes or make the SME re-think their process. Maximum, the SME will get ahead of

the count and embrace the changes needed.

Practitioners and their organizations, nationwide must see that someone from their region is on the GG – 

there must be regional representation. Transparency is critical and will help with influence. 

How should NIST researchers engage with the GGs in strengthening the use of FS? 

NIST Researchers could serve as member-monitors and facilitators and help encourage individual 

participants to reach consensus as well as suggesting topical areas for discussion. Having a neutral entity 

announce these changes will help in with its reception. Once organizations know about the website and 

where to look and check regarding update news, the website may function quite well. 

The GGs may also be the arena where new issues arise and they identify where new research is needed. 

NIST advisors can assist in assessment of what may need a new GG or for a continuation of the current GG.

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups

Representation should come from multiple arenas, such as:

1. State and Federal Law Enforcement and Justice agencies

2. State and local police and sheriff’s departments - small, medium and large agencies

3. Researchers and Educators from recognized higher education institutions

4. Leaders in the field

5. Representative citizen organizations that have an interest in the discipline as stakeholders (i.e., NCMEC,

NamUs, Doe Network)

What is the best way to engage organizations?

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 120 of 337
Response from Sandra Enslow 

Before a GG is launched, there should be a way to notify interested parties, maybe on the earlier 

mentioned website. Interested parties should be able to send papers and information in for the GG to 

consider. 

How much involvement for Feds, state and local agencies at the outset

They employ the very Forensic Scientists that are needed in the GGs and thus they will be active 

participants in the GG process.

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups

SWGs must transition

Keep it simple and clean. No two-tiered class system. 

Are there broader groups that could combine and form GGs? Perhaps, but not necessarily for 

Forensic Art since this is a new concentration. 

Different disciplines will need different approaches - 

We can only comment on Forensic Art. Our structure is very different from those in the DNA discipline. But 

we are similar to those in Fingerprints and other identification disciplines. 

The Forensic Artist Discussion Group is the broadest and most representative organization of practicing 

forensic artists available and should be looked at to form the basis of the Guidance Group for Forensic Art.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sandra Enslow, BA Catyana Skory Falsetti, MFS

Graphic Arts Coordinator, Forensic Artist Administrator, Instructor, Forensic Artist

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department CSI Academy of Florida

Associate Member, AAFS Associate Member, AAFS

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 121 of 337
1 

November 11, 2013 

To Whom It May Concern, 

The Scientific Working Group for Medicolegal Death Investigation (SWGMDI) wishes to offer comments in response to the recent 

Federal Register Notice regarding “Possible Models for the Administration and Support of Discipline-Specific Guidance Groups for 

Forensic Science” (Docket No. 130308459-3459-01). The comments provided by SWGMDI are not intended to represent the 

opinions of other Scientific Working Groups and should be taken as the opinion of SWGMDI only. 

The SWGMDI was established in 2010 and to-date has been a productive working group. With respect to stakeholders and the 

SWGMDI Board Members, all deliberations and product development activities have been conducted in a way to ensure 

transparency, openness, and balance. In addition, the SWGMDI has a defined decision making process which includes a 

mechanism for stakeholder input and appeals when necessary. In short, the SWGMDI already operates in a construct identical to 

that envisioned for proposed Guidance Groups. Thus, we believe that the SWGMDI could easily transition to becoming a Guidance 

Group for Medicolegal Death Investigation (GGMDI) almost seamlessly. SWGMDI already includes practitioners and other 

stakeholders from government, academia, and the non-profit sector. Membership of the GGMDI could easily be modified via 

existing SWGMDI bylaws to include additional members from industry. 

As the proposed Guidance Groups are NOT expected to report to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) or the National Institute of 

Standards Technology (NIST), it appears that the Guidance Groups will function somewhat autonomously in their development of 

guidance and standards documents. However, the occupational scope of the GGMDI would require collaboration with all relevant 

professional organizations that may have developed professional standards of their own. This could be accomplished by the 

development of a GGMDI standards "model," or recommendations designed to assist organizations and agencies in the 

improvement of their own standards and guidance documents. 

For a GGMDI to be effective and sustainable, the SWGMDI believes that a GGMDI should be funded via the NIST at a level, which 

allows at least two physical meetings of the GGMDI per year. The NIST might have a Guidance Group Management Office 

(GGMO), which manages the funds to support Guidance Group operations. Although the SWGMDI has been productive in the face 

of insufficient funds to hold physical meetings, its progress has been hampered and delayed by having to conduct business 

electronically. There are certain topics and projects which absolutely require face-to-face discussion and debate, and any GGMDI 

should be funded to allow physical meetings to occur. SWGMDI does not believe that a fee-based membership model is appropriate 

for medicolegal death investigation. The interested stakeholder organizations and other entities are already financially strapped and 

lack funds to support a fee-based membership model. However, it is conceivable that professional organizations might be able to fund 

the travel of GGMDI members who officially represent the organization on the GGMDI. However, provision of such funding may 

introduce the potential for bias, whereas independent Federal funding would lessen this potential, allow for appropriate stakeholder 

participation and keep the process transparent and on mission. 

The SWGMDI does not feel a need to address all of the question posed in the Federal Register Notice as detailed in Sections 1 

through 4 on pages 59655 and 59656 of the Notice. However, the SWGMDI does have comments regarding some of the questions 

posed. 

• Each Scientific Working Group (SWG) should decide for itself if, and how it should/could transition to a Guidance

Group, and whether any existing SWGs might benefit by combining or fragmenting into additional Guidance Groups.

The SWGMDI believes it should simply transition to its own Guidance Group.

• The current processes used by SWGMDI have made it successful and a key element is that SWGMDI has among its

membership relevant stakeholders who are committed and productive. Its ability to function somewhat autonomously

should continue if it becomes a GGMDI, and processes similar to those currently utilized should be incorporated if

SWGMDI becomes a GGMDI.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 122 of 337
2 

• Partnerships with interested stakeholder organizations such as the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME),

the International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners (IAC&ME), the American Academy of Forensic

Sciences (AAFS), the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators (ABMDI), the Society of Medicolegal Death

Investigators (SOMDI), the College of American Pathologists (CAP), and the American Society of Clinical Pathology

(ASCP) would be critical in the development of guidance and standards documents, as such entities are already involved in

the development of organizational standards. State associations of coroners and medical examiners need also be involved

because of variations in death investigation systems among states. It is expected that the GGMDI would collaborate with

such entities as needed. The GGMDI should include members from the entities, and such is already the case in reference to

the SWGMDI.

• Because a GGMDI would not have authority to mandate standards, the key to success is to involve the stakeholder

organizations that develop standards with a goal of improving existing standards and to collaborate in the development of

new standards. The GGMDI should be free to develop its own model standards for consideration and adoption by

stakeholder organizations and practitioners.

• Interested parties who may not be direct participants in GGMDI can be easily involved by using the existing SWGMDI

practices of due process and public review and comment.

• Although there might be a Forensic Science Guidance Group website, the SWGMDI believes that such a site should

mainly be one which contains links to individual Guidance Group websites which should be managed by the individual

Guidance Groups. Funding and management (including website hosting, security management, software updates, tech

support etc) should be provided by NIST for each Guidance Group to independently manage the organization and content

of that GG's information and products whether this be a mini-website within the overall GG website or a stand

alone individual GG specific website. Some of the advantages of one overall GG website with mini websites for each

guidance group would be streamlined management and public review processes as well as enable search capabilities

across all GG’s instead of just one. NIST should also provide funding and support for web-based project management

systems to enhance the efficient work of the GG (Basecamp as an example).

In summary, the SWGMDI believes that it should transition to a Guidance Group (GGMDI), and that such transition can be virtually 

seamless. Its membership might be expanded slightly to include industry representatives. The NIST should provide funding through a 

Guidance Group Management Office to ensure at least two physical meetings of GGMDI annually, as well as funding for operational 

costs and electronic technology such as a website and project management software. 

Although the future of the proposed National Forensic Science Commission remains unclear, the SWGMDI believes that if such a 

Commission materializes, the commission should use information developed by Guidance Groups, but not oversee Guidance Group 

management. The Commission could, and should make recommendations to Guidance Groups regarding work task identification and 

prioritization, however the most critical assistance may come in the form of identifying potential funding opportunities and support 

resources to ensure effective and ongoing operations of the Guidance Groups. 

Respectfully, 

SWGMDI Board

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 123 of 337
The need for global cooperation and understanding 

7 November 2013 

Ms. Susan Ballou 

Office of Special Programs 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

\\ 

We write in response to NIST’s invitation for comments on “Possible Models for the 

Administration and Support of Discipline-Specific Guidance Groups for Forensic Science,” 

Docket No. 130508459–3459–0, September 27, 2013. Detection canine teams are one of the 

most versatile forensic tools used globally and play an increasingly important role in law 

enforcement investigations. While canine detection and olfaction is not considered a formal 

forensic science discipline, we feel strongly that scientific research is the foundation for 

improvement of canine detection capabilities, and that a Scientific Working Group model is 

the appropriate model for the continuation of the work of the SWGs and other disciplinespecific guidance groups as they will be supported by NIST in the future. With the expanded 

use of detection canine teams by law enforcement, there has been an increase in 

prosecutorial inquiries and judicial reviews in regards to the scientific basis for detection 

canine team performance. The Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal detector 

Guidelines (SWGDOG) provides a comprehensive resource for prosecutors and courts to 

answer questions or provide information about best practices for training, certification and 

establishing reliability of canine detection teams. As an example, one member organization, 

following SWGDOG best practices, successfully defended a Daubert challenge to the 

scientific basis of canine evidence and most recently SWGDOG was cited by the United 

States Supreme Court in its opinion ruling of Florida v. Harris. SWGDOG also has impacts all 

over the world, including serving as the model for the recently formed European Union (EU) 

Explosives Detection Dog Working Group. 

SWGDOG is a catalyst in prioritizing research and development in both canine and 

orthogonal detector areas, in direct support of local law enforcement activities. Furthermore, 

the documents prepared thus far by SWGDOG members have been used to support the 

requirements set forth in Homeland Security Presidential Directive -19 (HSPD-19), 

Combating Terrorist Use of Explosives within the United States issued in February 2007 and 

the White House Policy Statement on Countering Improvised Explosive Devices released in 

February 2013. The expanded policy statement specifically identifies “Finalizing and 

implementing national guidelines for explosives detection canine teams” a process that relies 

heavily on the best practices and guidelines developed and vetted through SWGDOG and 

the canine community. It is critical to maintain funding to support SWGDOG activities in 

order to successfully execute the required tasks associated with this national security effort 

and other critical canine detection activities. 

Although SWGDOG has adapted a collaborative online process for coordination of 

documents prior to in person meetings, thus reducing the overall costs, the need for in 

person meetings is also critical to the successful coordination and discussions in order to 

produce viable content. 

Chair 

Ken Furton, PhD 

Vice-Chair 

David Kontny

Subcommittee Chairs 

1. Unification of Terminology 

Ken Furton, PhD 

ken.furton@fiu.edu 

2. General Guidelines for

Training, Certification, and 

Maintenance

Rex Stockham 

rex.stockham@ic.fbi.gov 

3. Selection of Serviceable Dogs

and Replacement Systems 

Don Blair 

Dbk9cia@aol.com 

4 Kenneling, Keeping, and 

Health Care 

Robert Gillette, DVM, PhD 

rgillette@sportsvet.com 

5. Selection, Training of

Handlers and Instructors 

John Pearce 

john@ik9.com 

6. Procedures on Presenting 

Evidence in Court 

Mark Rispoli, JD 

CA11550@aol.com 

7. Research and Technology

Melissa Stormer 

glnmait@mhtc.net 

8. Substance Detection Dogs

Dave Kontny 

david.kontny@hq.dhs.gov

9. Scent Detection Dogs

Jan C. Zoodsma 

jczoodsma@hotmail.com 

10. Knowledge Management

Terry Anderson 

t_bandit94@hotmail.com 

Executive Secretary 

Jessie Greb

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 124 of 337
The need for global cooperation and understanding 

The Guidance Groups will require funding for at least two meetings per year as well as administrative and 

website support. The ability to meet in person on a semi-annual basis is vital to the drafting and editing of 

proposed standards. The location of these meetings may vary but they should be able to accommodate full 

group discussions and up to three subcommittee breakout sessions at any given time. 

We are writing to request that the current SWGDOG model be considered as the framework for future 

Guidance Groups. SWGDOG is unique in that our best practices and guidelines follow a scientific model. 

SWGDOG has volunteer members in all of the suggested stakeholder areas (science, practitioners, levels of 

government, international, academia, non-profit, and industry) and maintains a public website 

(www.swgdog.org) to solicit public comment and share all work products. Attachment A provides background 

on the SWGs. 

1. Structure of the Guidance Groups

QUESTION: Given the scope and principles of the Guidance Groups outlined here, what are structural 

models that could best support the Guidance Groups, taking into account the technical, policy, legal, and 

operational aspects of forensic science? 

ANSWER: The current Scientific Working Group model should be the framework for future guidance groups. 

SWGDOG’s best practice recommendations follow a scientific model. SWGDOG has volunteer members in 

all of the suggested stakeholder areas (science, practitioners, levels of government, academia, non-profit, 

and industry) and maintains a public website (www.swgdog.org) to solicit public comment and share all work 

products. Creating subcommittees within each Guidance Group would take into account the technical, policy, 

legal and operational aspects of forensic science. In SWGDOG we have addressed this by including 

subcommittees such as terminology, general guidelines, health and husbandry, discipline specific training and 

certification guidelines, presenting evidence in court, research and technology and outreach and education. 

QUESTION: What elements or models would facilitate the sharing of best practices and uniform practices 

across the Guidance Groups? 

ANSWER: The success and response SWGDOG has had through its public website leads this group to 

recommend public websites be required for each Guidance Group as well as a centralized website with 

information pertaining to all Guidance Groups. 

QUESTION: Are there public policies or private sector initiatives in other countries that have successfully 

strengthened the nation’s use of forensic science by supporting the development and propagation of forensic 

science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of forensic science research and measurement 

standards, and verifying the scientific basis exists for each discipline? If so, what are they? 

ANSWER: The recently concluded EU-US Explosives Experts Seminar outlined the efforts made by 

SWGDOG as a model used in the formation of the European Union (EU) Explosives Detection Dog Working 

Group. The EU Explosives Detection Dog Working Group has worked to identify research needs for canine 

olfaction and has promoted science-based best practices for the operation of explosives detection canines in 

the aviation sector in Europe, including certification and accreditation models. In support of the recently 

released White House Policy Statement on Countering Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) and its 

Implementation Plan the US and its allies will foster the creation of international regional working groups to 

facilitate a global understanding of canine capabilities in support of collaborative solutions to global IED 

threats. 

QUESTION: What are the elements which make existing forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) 

successful? Are there examples of best practices in specific SWGs that ought to be replicated in Guidance 

Groups? If so, what are they? 

ANSWER: Elements which make existing forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) successful include 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 125 of 337
The need for global cooperation and understanding 

sharing technical and operational experience with a goal to generate needed research. There are also 

examples of case law reviews leading to suggesting best practices based on repeatable efficiency testing. 

Best practices replicated from current SWGs should include the document approval process, a six month 

process which includes the subcommittee drafting a document, a full membership review, revisions by the 

subcommittee, a vote of the full membership (75% approval required) and the board (100% approval 

required), 60 days of public comment, subcommittee revisions based on public comment and then another 

vote of the full membership and board. Best practices and guidelines are then published to the website for 

public access and consideration for use. Attachment A provides additional details on the current operation of 

the SWGs. 

QUESTION: Would partnership with a standards development organization (SDO) in which the standard is 

issued by the SDO present any obstacle for participation by a broad range of forensics science stakeholders 

in the development of a standard? If so, why? 

ANSWER: Standards are not our preferred route because of the differences in agency operations and legal 

requirements. The costs associated with SDOs would be detrimental to SWGDOG and its community. Often 

times the best practices and guidelines developed by SWGDOG are utilized in the formation of specific 

canine discipline standards that meet the mission needs of the end user. In addition, one of the hallmarks of 

the forensic science SWGs, and SWGDOG in particular, is that its members come from many different fields 

of employment, which can be an impediment to achieving appropriate representation in an SDO. 

QUESTION: Would partnership with an SDO in which the standard is issued by the SDO present any 

obstacle to broad adoption of a standard? If so, why? 

ANSWER: Yes, it would be an obstacle because many agencies, law enforcement organizations, private 

sector stakeholders and individuals would be priced out of SDOs due to costs.

QUESTION: Would a fee-based membership model run through a not-for-profit organization (similar to the 

National Conference of Weights and Measures) present a significant obstacle for participation? 

ANSWER: Yes, it would be an obstacle because many participant agencies and members would be unwilling 

and unable to pay dues or fees. 

QUESTION: If the Guidance Groups followed a fee-based membership model, are there appropriately-tiered 

systems for fees that would prevent ‘‘pricing out’’ organizations, including individuals? 

ANSWER: No, this is a poor idea; this would ensure that only those individuals and agencies with adequate 

funding levels would influence the setting of standards. This idea would be an impediment to the Guidance 

Groups mission of having representation and participation from all of its stakeholders. 

QUESTION: Other than a privatized model, are there other means to maintain a governance or coordinating 

body in the long term? If possible, please give examples of existing structures and their positive and negative 

attributes. 

ANSWER: In that the current SWGs model has worked for over 20 years, it doesn’t seem that much needs to 

be changed. There may be room for small improvements, but a complete restructure seems unnecessary. 

2. Impact of Guidance Groups

QUESITON: Given that the Guidance Groups cannot mandate the adoption of standards, what can they do to 

best leverage their position and encourage adoption? To what extent does membership and transparency 

impact possible adoption of guidance at the state and local level? 

ANSWER: The best way to leverage position and encourage adoption is by having participation of the 

membership and buy-in of the best practices and guideline development. An information sharing website 

adds to the transparency and solicits additional input and acceptance by those individuals not directly 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 126 of 337
The need for global cooperation and understanding 

participating in the process. Membership and transparency impact possible adoption of guidance at the state, 

local and private sector level by those members taking the information back to their local agencies and 

influencing policy decisions through implementation. The reference to SWGDOG best practices and 

guidelines in federal and state court cases and legal opinions has lead more people to our site and has 

caused an increase in the number of state and local agencies choosing to adopt SWGDOG best practices 

and guidelines. 

QUESTION: Are there best practices or models to consider with regard to a structure that would encourage 

effective communication with the scientific community to explore research gaps and aid in recognizing 

research priorities? 

ANSWER: Effective communication is encouraged by having regular meetings and sharing research 

initiatives during those meetings. Inviting stakeholder guests to those meetings allows for information sharing, 

knowledge of available resources and bringing more stakeholders into process. SWGDOG has on several 

occasions invited guests to previous SWGDOG meetings to learn about research gaps and new initiatives in 

order to educate the community on what the current needs are. One result of these activities was the 

formulation of a four point rating scale (CRITICAL; ESSENTIAL; ENHANCING; or DESIRABLE) for 

recommended research. This rating scale assists the scientific community in recognizing and prioritizing 

research, development test and evaluation (RDT&E) needs of scientists and practitioners within the canine 

community. 

QUESTION: How should NIST researchers engage with the Guidance Groups in support of the goal to 

strengthen the nation’s use of forensic science by supporting the development and propagation of forensic 

science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of forensic science research and measurement 

standards, and verifying the scientific basis exists for each discipline? 

ANSWER: NIST researchers should be a part of the Guidance Groups based on areas of expertise. 

SWGDOG has in the past had a representative from NIST on its membership. A model similar to that of 

current SWGs (i.e. representative FBI liaison) would be appropriate so long as the person has expertise in the 

subject area of the Guidance Group. NIST researchers assigned to a Guidance Group must be able to assist 

the groups in identifying relevant research projects underway, and be able to convey the group’s preferences 

for projects needed to advance the scientific basis of the group’s discipline. 

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups

QUESTION: Who are the stakeholders who should be represented on the Guidance Groups? What steps can 

NIST take to ensure appropriately broad representation within the Guidance Groups? What does balanced 

representation mean and how can it be achieved? 

ANSWER: Stakeholders in all areas should be represented on Guidance Groups; this should include 

scientists, practitioners, Federal, state and, local government personnel, international, academia, non-profit, 

and industry. Balance is achieved through attrition, and gaps can be filled based on necessity and expertise. 

This process was very effective in SWGDOG. Areas of need were filled based on incoming applications and 

level of expertise. 

QUESTION: What is the best way to engage organizations playing a role in forensic science, standards 

development and practice? 

ANSWER: Including individuals from those organizations who are directly impacted by the process 

development would be the best way. SWGDOG has individuals from major professional police canine 

organizations, federal agencies, state and local law enforcement agencies, academia, and members of the 

judicial system represented on SWGDOG; this ensures others in their respective communities are aware of 

the work being done by the SWG. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 127 of 337
The need for global cooperation and understanding 

QUESTION: How should interested parties who may not be direct participants in Guidance Groups, engage in 

a meaningful way to have an impact on issues in front of the Guidance Groups? 

ANSWER: Interested parties could be extended guest invitations to a general meeting as well as solicitation 

outside of full group meetings for areas requiring additional subject matter expertise. Engagement is also 

meaningful through outreach with the respected canine disciplines through publications, conferences, 

meetings, public comment periods, and an active process to fielding and responding to questions via the 

Guidance Group public website. 

QUESTION: To what extent and in what ways must the Federal government, as well as state, local, tribal and 

territorial governments be involved at the outset? 

ANSWER: Government agencies involved at the outset should describe their individual needs to the 

Guidance Groups. Those needs should form the outline for goals, not dictate the path of the Guidance 

Groups. A fine balance of participation is needed – based on the discipline specific areas involved. 

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups

QUESTION: Should all of the current forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) transition to Guidance 

Groups? 

ANSWER: Yes, all of the current forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) should transition to Guidance 

Groups. The extensive work product and impact in the communities is a vital carry over to Guidance Groups. 

QUESTION: Are there broader groupings of forensic science disciplines that could form the basis of 

Guidance Groups than the current group of twenty-one SWGs? If so, what are those groupings? 

ANSWER: No, broader groupings would cause a loss in scope and effectiveness. While it may be possible for 

some groups, this idea is not feasible for SWGDOG based on the unique composition of the current work 

being accomplished. 

QUESTION: Is there a need for a cross- disciplinary functional approach (i.e. statistical analysis) and how 

could the Guidance Groups be structured to best address that need? 

ANSWER: Guidance Groups could appoint a member with statistical expertise related to the discipline, 

however it could be useful to have consistency across SWGs related to statistics. A statistical consultant 

would be a good resource for all Guidance Groups. 

QUESTION: To what extent do Guidance Groups need to support different forensic science disciplines 

differently from one another? 

ANSWER: It is vital for the Guidance Groups to allow for differences across disciplines and keep channels 

open for communication. Attempts should be made to find common ground wherever possible. Terminology is 

a good example of an area with common ground that could be incorporated into all Guidance Groups. 

SWGDOG is thankful for the opportunity to provide feedback and public comment to NIST. Should you have 

any questions regarding comment or would like SWGDOG to expand on any given topic area we would be 

glad to do so. 

Best regards, 

Kenneth G. Furton, PhD David Kontny 

Dean, Professor & Director Emeritus Senior Advisor 

International Forensic Research Institute Joint Program Office for Countering IEDs 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 128 of 337
The need for global cooperation and understanding 

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry Department of Homeland Security 

Florida International University Quantico, VA 22203 

Miami, FL 33199 703-985-4048 (Tel) 202-302-6137(Cell) 

305-348-2292 (Tel) 305-348-3772 (Fax) david.kontny@hq.dhs.gov

furtonk@fiu.edu david.kontny@ic.fbi.gov 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 129 of 337
Attachment A

www.swgdog.org • EMAIL info@swgdog.org • PHONE (305)Ͳ348Ͳ2292 • FAX (305)Ͳ348Ͳ3772

History & Background

The Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal detector Guidelines (SWGDOG) are being developed by a

membership of respected scientists, practitioners, and policy makers representing diverse backgrounds.

SWGDOG was cooperatively funded by the NIJ, FBI, DHS, and TWSG from 2005 through 2011. During this

timeframe general meetings were held on a biannual basis. This project was undertaken as a response to

concerns coming from a variety of sectors including law enforcement and homeland security regarding the

need to improve the performance, reliability, and courtroom defensibility of detector dog teams and their

optimized combination with electronic detection devices.

The approval of each subcommittee best practice document takes 6 months to complete including a 2 month period of

public comments. The ten SWGDOG subcommittees are as follows:

1. Unification of terminology

2. General guidelines for training, certification, maintenance and documentation

3. Selection of serviceable dogs and replacement systems

4. Kenneling, keeping, and health care

5. Selection and training of handlers and instructors

6. Procedures on presenting evidence in court

7. Research and technology

8. Substance dogs:Agriculture; Arson; Drugs; Explosives; Human remains;

Contraband; Pest; Currency; Firearms

9. Scent dogs: NonͲspecific Human Scent Wilderness Area Search; Location Checks; Article Search; Scent identification

lineͲups ; Live People in Disaster Environments; Track Trail people based on Last Known Position; PreͲscented Canines

Aged Trail; Live People in Avalanche

10. Outreach & Education

Positive Outcomes

The success of SWGDOG is dependent on 2 groups of people:(1) the 55 SWGDOG members who actively and

enthusiastically work during and between meetings on documents, and (2) the numerous external members

within the working dog community who take the time to provide detailed commentary during the public

comment stages. To date there are thirty nine approved guidelines within 436 pages of resources.

SWGDOG is a catalyst in prioritizing research and development in both canine and orthogonal detector areas,

in direct support of local law enforcement activities. Most recently SWGDOG was cited in the Supreme Court

ruling of Florida v. Harris. In addition, best practices established through SWGDOG for explosives detection

canine teams are being utilized to inform the National Guidelines for Explosives Detection Canine Teams,

currently under development.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 130 of 337
Response from R.E. Gaensslen 

I never reply to these invitations for comment .. but I have a thought about this one. It looks like 

NIST is set to play a major coordinating role in the federal involvement with forensic sciences. 

One thing I have always thought would be useful is to have a sort of overall coordinating 

committee for all the SGWs, TWGs. This could insure that they all had similar objectives, and 

could get into questions of standardizing language, report writing, interpretation guidelines, .... 

things that generally are too big in scope for any given TWG, SWG. The profession is a little too 

balkanized. Everyone feels that his/her area of specialization is sacred and needs its own 

guidance. No doubt, there are discipline specific things, but there are also overarching concepts. 

One thing the profession needs is a consensus vocabulary. 

-- 

R.E. Gaensslen 

Professor Emeritus, Forensic Science 

University of Illinois, Chicago 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 131 of 337
Response from Pete Gagliardi 

In#response#to#NIST’s#press#release#dated#September#27,#2013,# entitled:#NIST%Invites%Comments%on%

Structure%of%Forensic%Science%Guidance%Groups%and#the#instructions#provided,#I#am#grateful#for#the#

opportunity#to#submit#the#following#comments#to#some#of#the#questions#posed#in#the#more#specific#

Notice%of%Inquiry identified#in#the#press#release.#Should#you#have#any#questions#please#feel#free#to#

contact#me.#

• Who$are$the$stakeholders$who$should$be$represented$on$the$Guidance$Groups?$

COMMENT:#All#of#the#right#people#who#have#a#stake#in#the#outcome#must#be#thinking#and#acting#

together—not#only#at#the#outset,#but#throughout#the#entire#process.#When#thinking#of#the#“right”#

people#one#can#look#to#the#broad#and#general#domains#of#Law#Enforcement,#Forensic#Science,#

Prosecutors,#Trial#Courts,#Related#Industry,#and$the Public$that$they$all$serve.#Many#of#the#general#

domains#have#subSdomains#(e.g.#Law#Enforcement#has#first#responders,#CSI’s,#&#Investigators).#

There#are#also#tiers#within#domains#and#subSdomains#to#be#considered#such#as#jurisdictional#tiers#

(e.g.#federal,#state#and#local)#which#have#different#capabilities#and#needs#and#face#different#

constraints;#and#organizational#tiers#(e.g.#Senior#Management,#midSlevel#management,#and#First#

line#supervision#and#operators).#

• What$steps$can$NIST$take$to$ensure$appropriately$broad$representation$within$the$Guidance$

Groups?$

COMMENT:#Identify#the#stakeholder#domains,#subSdomains#and#tiers#and#ensure#representation#in#

a#collaborative#process.#Plain#old#cooperation#will#not#be#enough#to#drive#stakeholder#

management—a#stronger#action#is#required.#The#level#of#action#needed#is#best#described#by#the#

word#collaboration in#which#participants#think$and$act$together.#

##

• What$does$balanced$representation$mean$and$how$can$it$be$achieved?

COMMENT:#Representation#from#all#stakeholder#domains,#subSdomains#and#tiers#in#a#collaborative#

manner#seeking#sustainable#solutions.#Sustainable#can#be#achieved#through#a#balance#of#people,#

processes#and#technology.#Technology can#help#people be#more#efficient#and#effective#in#the#

execution#of#their#processes.#

• What$is$the$best$way$to$engage$organizations$playing$a$role$in$forensic$science,$standards$

development$and$practice?

COMMENT:#1)#Information#gathering#(e.g.#SWOT,#trend#analysis,#process#mapping,#etc.)#through#

surveys,#webinars,#meetings#and#2)#Facilitated#stakeholder#collaboration#sessions#on#specific#issues#

(e.g.#face#to#face#working#groups)

##

• How$should$interested$parties$who$may$not$be$direct$participants$in$Guidance$Groups,$engage$in$a$

meaningful$way$to$have$an$impact$on$issues$in$front$of$the$Guidance$Groups?

##

COMMENT:#They#should#be#given a#chance#at#each#stage#of#the#process#to#review#drafts#and#

updates#and#provide#comments#electronically#(e.g.#email,#website,#etc).#

##

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 132 of 337
Response from Pete Gagliardi 

• To what$extent$and$in$what$ways$must$the$Federal$government,$as$well$as$state,$local,$tribal$and$

territorial$governments$be$involved$at$the$outset?

##

COMMENT:#As#they#all#are#affected#coSstakeholders#they#should#be#involved#to#the#full#extent.#As#

previously#stated#they#have#different#capabilities#and#needs#and#face#different#constraints.#For#

example,#consider#a#gun#taken#into#custody#from#a#convicted#felon.#The#state#prosecutor,#

concerned#with#crimes#like#murder,#may#ask#for#a#ballistics#check#to#be#done#immediately#to#

determine#if#the#gun#was#used#to#kill#someone.#On#the#other#hand,#the#federal#prosecutor#who#is#

concerned#with#unlawful#possession#matters#may#ask#for#a#DNA#or#fingerprint#exam.#

##

## PETE GAGLIARDI

Senior Vice President 

FORENSIC TECHNOLOGY INC.

www.forensictechnology.com

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 133 of 337
Response from Mark Gardner 

NIST!GUIDANCE!GROUP!RESPONSE:

1. Structure:!Forensic!Science’s!true!purpose!is!the!administration!of!justice!not!the!generation!of!

profit!or!market!share.!It!does!not!function!well!in!a!model!designed!for!business!or!industry.

2. Successful!elements:!selfKselection.

3. Is!an!SDO!an!obstacle:!yes,!reference!SWGDOC!and!ASTM.

4. Model:!The!current!skeleton!of!the!SWG’s!works!well!with!the!appropriate!funding.

5. Leverage:!Work!with!users!and!make!the!best!standards!possible!with!no!compromise!on!quality!

or!accuracy.

6. Representation:!biased!toward!experts!working!in!the!field.

7. Broader!groupings:!each!discipline!has!it’s!subtle!differences!and!concerns!that!are!best!

addressed!by!the!individual!groups.

Mark!Gardner!

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 134 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 135 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 136 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 137 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 138 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 139 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 140 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 141 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 142 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 143 of 337
Response from Garth Glassburg 

Dear Susan, 

I read the letter Scott prepared on the concerns of potential changes for SWGS. At our lab we 

use the suggestions that SWGS provide in all of our sections. Within the Accreditation, court or 

Forensic communities there have been few substantial complaints. What I find interesting is the 

lack of data that critics of SWGS present. I find their comments in the press to be general and 

without specifics. Members of SWGS have provided invaluable information to the forensic 

community. This includes technical standards, instrumental data and personal contacts that are 

invaluable. 

Progress with the SWGS have taken years to develop. On the big picture, what will change and 

why are these changes needed? Who will decide what changes will be made to SWGS? The 

concern I have is there will be much disruption in the forensic community, with little to show for 

it. I really do not see the need for massive changes for SWGs. Oranizations can always 

improve. I am not against change, but a revolution for a community that has limited 

resources should be challenged. 

Scotts letter is much more detailed. I just feel that SWGs are not broke, so why fix 

them? Specific policy problems should be fixed. However, these need to be identified so they 

can be addressed. 

Thank you for your time. 

Garth Glassburg, M.S. 

Executive Director 

Northeastern Illinois Regional Crime Lab 

An Internationally Accredited Laboratory (ISO:17025) FQS

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 144 of 337
Response from Helen Griffin 

Hi Susan,

I have attached some comments I hope will be helpful in structuring the Guidance Groups.

I have used the work products of SWGTREAD, SWGMAT, and SWGIT. The working group that I have 

found most helpful has been SWGTREAD. They always make their documents open for comment prior to 

acceptance. Also, they have a website that provides a practitioner's forum where questions can be asked 

of fellow practitioners and an area (Treadtyper) where scene impressions can be posted for assistance 

from fellow practitioners in identifying brand and model. The website has been used to post up-to-theminute information in the field regarding new research and papers. Videos from plant tours are available 

for viewing on the website. All of this is in addition to the best practices and bibliographies that have been 

developed.

I would find resources such as training videos and atlases especially valuable if they were developed by 

the Guidance Groups.

Please let me know if you need practitioner input on any areas I haven't covered in the attached 

document. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide suggestions. Helen

FS Helen Griffin

Ventura County Sheriff's Forensic Sciences Lab

""

Possible!Models!for!the!Administration!and!Support!of!Discipline"Specific!Guidance!Groups!for!Forensic!

Science

1) Video!conferencing!centers!should!be!established!in!either!major!forensic!labs!or!in!Universities

such!that!these!centers!are!accessible!to!the!maximum!number!of!stakeholders.!!Meetings!of

the!Guidance!Groups!should!be!dominantly!through!video!conferencing!with!select!individuals

from!each!regional!area!meeting!in!person!only!when!necessary.

2) Participation!in!Guidance!Groups!should!be!expansive.!!All!stakeholders!who!are!certified!should

be!able!to!participate!in!the!Guidance!Group!relevant!to!their!certification.

3) Certification!should!be!available!for!all!specialty!areas!for!which!there!are!Guidance!Groups.

Certification!should!be!available!to!all!practitioners!whether!working!in!a!lab!setting,!in!the field,

or!in!an!academic!setting.!!Certification!should!require both!written!and!practical!examinations.

4) The!Guidance!Groups!should!participate!in!the!structuring!of!proficiency!testing.!!Current

proficiency!tests!cannot!be!used!to!establish!consensus!regarding!methodology!or!to!measure

error!rate!because!they!are!worked!by!a!variety!of!people,!some who!are!not!qualified!in!the

specialty!areas.!!If!proficiency!testing!was!controlled!so!that!the!results!from!certified!examiners

could!be!separated!from!other results then!the!results!could!be!used!to!provide!meaningful

data.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 145 of 337
Response from Helen Griffin 

5) Common!requirements!among!Guidance!Groups!such!as!report!writing!and!conclusion!scales!

should!be!unified!between!the!groups.

6) Crime!scene!processing!and!reconstruction!should!be!placed!on an!equal!footing!with!the!other!

forensic!sciences!as!needing!oversight!and!guidance.

7) There!are!SWG!groups!that!might!benefit!by!being!subgroups!of!one!main!group.!!Suggestions!

for!grouping!are:

a. Combine!SWGFAST!and!SWGTREAD!under!impression!evidence.

b. Combine!FISWG,!SWGANTH,!SWGDMI,!and!SWGDVI!under!human!identification.

c. Combine!SWGDOG,!SWGIT,!and!SWGSTAIN!under!crime!scene.

d. Combine!SWGCBRN,!SWGDRUG,!and!SWGTOX!under!chemical.

e. Combine!SWGFEX!and!SWGGSR!with!SWGMAT.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 146 of 337
TO: Susan Ballou 

RE: Possible Models for the Administration and Support of Discipline-Specific Guidance Groups for 

Forensic Science 

1. Structure

I think SWGSTAIN offers a good model for future Guidance Groups. Its membership is both diverse and 

representative. It has members who are from government (U.S. state and local practitioners), members 

who still work for government agencies; members who, after having worked for government agencies, 

are now working privately; members who have only worked in the private sector; a sitting judge; 

academic-based researchers; and a large international contingent, many of whom work for their 

respective country’s federal government. In addition, SWGSTAIN also has invited guests are each 

meeting who come from any or all of the aforementioned groups so as to provide fresh perspective and 

balance. It has not “maxed out” its membership so as to allow for the presence of invited guests. 

Guests from one or more professional organizations have been, and continue to be, invited. 

Any fee-based membership model for the Guidance Groups, regardless of how it operates, will present a 

huge obstacle for multiple reasons. It would only reflect the views of those who could afford to 

participate. Many private practitioners and budget-strapped agencies would be unable to participate. It 

could also weigh the membership in such a manner as not to reflect those working in the discipline. (For 

example, what if the group were primarily populated by those purely academic researchers who have 

access to grant funds but severely limited those who are actively engaged in case work?) One can only 

guess the impact this approach might have on international participation. Some individuals, both in the 

discipline and in the general public, could view any work product as being sold to the highest bidder and 

not a consensus-based approach. 

2. Impact of Guidance Groups

Guidance Groups can leverage their position and encourage adoption of their proposed standards by 

involving professional associations devoted to the various disciplines; by posting their guidance 

documents on a website available to the group which would put the documents in a public arena; by 

including those in the legal profession in the Guidance Groups; and by holding open forums or panel 

discussions at various professional meetings. 

The best way for NIST researchers to engage with the Guidance Groups would be to attend, perhaps 

regularly, meetings of the various Guidance Groups to see how they function, learn about the 

disciplines, and meet the members. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry

5HVSRQVHIURP7RP*ULIILQ

NOI Response - Page 147 of 337
3. Representation in the Guidance Groups 

To some degree, perhaps only slightly, the stakeholders for any given SWG may be discipline-specific. 

Other than that, a general representation should include active practitioners from both government and 

private practice, international composition, judicial members, and academic-based researchers. Coming 

from an academic background myself before getting into local and then state agencies at which I did 

forensic analysis/examination, coupled with working on a SWG, I have seen where some academic 

researchers are wasting time and money on misdirected research or already established aspects. With 

respect to judicial representatives, I think it is imperative that such (potential) members to a Guidance 

Group are open-minded about a specific discipline versus having already gone on record as saying that 

discipline is “garbage.” Similarly, practitioners need to be open-minded about where their discipline 

needs research efforts and not just say “because we say.” NIST could define some general 

representation guidelines (such as percentage or minimum number of research, judicial, active 

practitioners, etc.) and rely on the individual Guidance Groups to select the best potential member. 

Organizations or professional associations devoted to a specific discipline should be represented on a 

Guidance Group. In one respect, this would already be accomplished by GG-members who also are 

members of a discipline-specific group (such as AFTE, IAI, and IABPA). In addition, such organizations 

could be assigned a maximum number of official representatives (the composition to be determined by 

each organization) to the Guidance Group. The next consideration would be if these positions were 

actually given a vote or just a voice. 

For at least some of the SWGs, interested parties who are not direct participants (such as on site or 

present at meetings) are afforded the opportunity to provide feedback to the SWGs when a draft 

document is open for public comment. The responsibility then becomes the party’s to indirectly 

participate through the public comment offering. 

Addressing the extent and ways governments (federal, state, etc.) should be involved at the outset is 

multi-level. If the federal government is mandating something of the work products of the Guidance 

Groups, the government has the duty to fund the groups. Asking Guidance Group participants to pay 

their own way is not going to provide any incentive to participate, much less follow issued guidelines or 

standards. The federal government can provide the structure and operation of the Guidance Groups. 

Any greater level of federal involvement should be considered with respect to membership on any given 

Guidance Group only if that federal lab is actively involved in casework and/or research in that 

discipline. I do not see how any open-ended involvement at any other government level (state, local, 

etc.) can be implemented, especially if that government entity was not actively involved in the Guidance 

Group discipline. This goal is best accomplished by each Guidance Group each seeking a representative 

membership that could include other levels of government based upon qualified (as determined by each 

Guidance Group) practitioners. The composition of a Guidance Group Trying to involve other nonfederal government entities just because they exist would seem to hamper a Guidance Group’s function 

just by overpopulating a Guidance Group. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 148 of 337
4. Scope of the Guidance Groups

Barring extenuating circumstances, the current SWGs should, at a minimum, provide the core or SWG 

personnel as long as the various stakeholders are currently represented on any given SWG. 

I cannot foresee that any broader groupings of forensic science disciplines would be beneficial. The 

discipline-based Guidance Groups need to maintain a focused activity which I do not think would 

happen if some broader base was sought. 

Guidance Groups that are similar in work or often have practitioners who work in more than one 

discipline (such as the current SWGTREAD and SWGFAST) might lend themselves to joint statistical 

analysis. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 149 of 337
Firstly,!I!would!like!to!start!my!comments!by!stating!that!the!SWG!on!Toxicology!is!quite!well!organized!

and!has!produced!some!good!guidance!documents!that!I!would!hate!to!see!be!for!naught.!I!do!not!

understand!the!desire!to!reinvent!the!wheel!however, I!understand!the!need!to!move!governance!from!

the!Office!of!the!President!to!the!National!Institute!of!Standards!and!Technology.!I!feel!both!can!be!

accomplished!by!legislature!that!moves!the!already!present!SWGs!under!NIST!and!provide!budget!for!its!

continual!activity.

That!being!said,!as!we!embark!on!the!journey!to!reinvent!the!aforementioned!wheel,!I!feel!the!best!way!

to!engage!stakeholders!would!be!through!committee!that!would!inform!through!professional!

organizations!like!the!American!Academy!of!Forensic!Sciences!and!the!Society!of!Forensic!Toxicologists.

I!also!feel!that!all!stakeholders!should!be!represented!including!those!from!academia,!the!public!and!

private!sector,!and!government.!Included!in!the!public!sector!are!local,!state,!and!federal!law!

enforcement!agencies.!Included!in!the!private!sector!are!nonHforHprofit!and!forHprofit!corporations!of!

small!and!large!sizes.!Usually!only!large!industry!representatives!make!it!on!to!committees.!And!finally,!

included!in!the!government!stakeholders!are!divisions!of!the!NIH!like!the!National!Institute!on!Drug!

Abuse.

A!great!standard!to!mirror!would!be!ISO.!Most!forensic!laboratories!in!other!countries!meet!the!ISO!

17025:2005!standard,!while!sadly!only!a!small!subset!of!laboratories!in!the!US!meet!this!standard.!It!

might!be!a!great!starting!point!when!guidance!documents!are!being!drafted.

Finally,!in!order!to!have!any!impact,!since!no!mandate!can!come!from!the!newly!formed!group,!there!

needs!to!be!incentives!to!adhere!to!the!best!practices!outlined.!Membership!fees!will!be!difficult!for!

many!laboratories!especially!in!toxicology,!as!we!have!had!our!funding!consistently!cut!over!the!last!

several!years.!And!we!cannot!continue!to!be!encouraged!and!expected!to!do!more!with!less.!I!cannot!

envision!a!membership!fee!tier!that!would!make!my!organization!join!since!as!an!ISOHaccredited!forensic!

organization!we!get!zero!benefit!from!membership.!In!the!same!vein,!I!also!doubt!any!suggestion!would!

prove!necessary!to!enact!if!so!doing!will!cost!without!financial!consideration!from!the!guidance!

organization.

Thank!you!for!taking!time!to!read!my!comments.

Kindly,

Erica!A.!Guice,!M.S.

Director!of!Research!and!Development

Western!Slope!Laboratory,!LLC

Response from Erica Guidice

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 150 of 337
Page 1 of 3

CAC Position Statement on NIST Guidance Groups Structure, Composition, and Administration

California Association of Criminalists

Office of the President

1001 W. Cutting Blvd., Suite 110 

Richmond, CA 94804 

Position Statement on NIST Guidance Groups Structure, Composition, and Administration 

November 12, 2013 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

c/o Susan Ballou 

100 Bureau Drive 

Mailstop 8102 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Dear Ms. Ballou: 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on, and answer the questions your agency posed about, the 

structure, impact, representation, and scope of the establishment of discipline-specific Guidance Groups. 

The California Association of Criminalists (CAC), established in 1953, was the first regional Forensic Science 

Organization in the United States of America. The CAC was founded to foster an exchange of ideas and 

information, to establish friendship and cooperation, and to encourage a high level of competence and ethics. 

The CAC membership is composed of government and privately employed criminalists who are involved in 

the scientific analysis of physical evidence. The ideology expressed by the sixteen founding members 

continues today. The CAC, with over 800 members (in California and all over the country), has been 

continually looked-to for guidance at the national level in areas of certification, ethics, and development of 

standards. 

Therefore, we appreciate that the opinions of the forensic science community are being solicited by your 

organization prior to any formal decisions being made about the structure, impact, representation, and scope of 

these Guidance Groups. In general, the members of the CAC support wholeheartedly the concept as stated in 

“Background” portion of the “Supplementary Information” section of the Federal Register Notice of Inquiry: 

“The proposed mission of the Guidance Groups to support the development and propagation of 

forensic science consensus documentary standards, monitor research and measurement standards 

gaps in each forensic discipline, and verify that a sufficient scientific basis exists for each discipline.” 

The more specific opinions of the CAC and its answers to the questions posed in the Notice of Inquiry follow 

and are categorized according to the four areas listed under the “Supplementary Information” section. 

Representation in the Guidance Groups 

“What does balanced representation mean and how can it be achieved?” 

As was stated in the 2009 National Academy of Sciences report (“Strengthening Forensic Science in the 

United States: A Path Forward”), the vast majority of forensic science casework is performed by laboratories 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 151 of 337
Page 2 of 3

CAC Position Statement on NIST Guidance Groups Structure, Composition, and Administration

at the State and local levels. Therefore, we feel strongly that the composition of the Guidance Groups should 

reflect that distribution and, therefore, be represented by a majority of practicing, casework-qualified forensic 

scientists working at the State and local levels. However, “balanced representation” would be more accurately 

achieved if two-thirds of the group members are employed by State and local laboratories. 

“How should interested parties who may not be direct participants in Guidance Groups, engage in a 

meaningful way to have an impact on issues in front of the Guidance Groups?” 

The non-casework members of each group should never constitute the majority of the group and, where 

involved, should have relevant expertise in that discipline. These non-casework members should serve in an 

advisory capacity, lacking the voting privileges afforded to the practicing forensic scientists. 

“What is the best way to engage organizations playing a role in forensic science, standards development and 

practice?” 

To fill vacancies in the Guidance Groups, we believe that duly recognized forensic science professional 

associations around the country (such as the CAC) be responsible for nominating individuals to serve as 

members of these groups. Group members should then be drawn from those nominees. In this way, the 

individuals chosen to serve have a responsibility and accountability to their member organizations. 

Requiring professional forensic science organizations to identify group members cannot be overemphasized 

and is of absolute, paramount concern to the forensic scientists we represent. And indeed, that concern is 

appropriate because they are the ones actually performing the casework in the laboratory without which there 

would be no need for guidance from any group. Additionally, there is precedent for this form of 

representation. The DNA Advisory Board was originally formed using a nomination method similar to the 

one described above. This type of membership selection allows for accountability and a fair, balanced method 

for the appointment and replacement of Guidance Group members. Finally, this provides greater transparency 

and communication since nominated members can then be responsible for reporting to their regional 

organizations. 

Structure of the Guidance Groups 

“If the Guidance Groups followed a fee-based membership model, are there appropriately-tiered systems for 

fees that would prevent “pricing out” organizations, including individuals?” 

In our response immediately above, we suggest that vacancies in the Guidance Groups be filled by selecting 

individuals from a pool of nominees established by the recognized forensic science professional organizations. 

If this model were followed, the professional organizations could be the financial sponsor for its members. 

This model has the advantage of being less likely to “price out” its members. The CAC has a history of 

sponsoring member representation on various forensic organizations and advisory committees. Obviously, if 

there were any risk that proper representation would be sacrificed due to expense, the CAC would strongly 

oppose any fee-based structure. We do anticipate the financial support of representatives as an issue that 

would need to be addressed. 

“What are the elements which make existing forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) successful?” 

The Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM) is one example of a successful and 

effective SWG. They meet regularly, they are represented by a good balance of the stakeholders, and they 

issue guidelines by which laboratories performing DNA analysis abide without significant controversy. More 

generally, the most successful SWGs have well-organized websites that serve a much needed information 

gathering, organizing, and distribution function. For example, SWGGUN has been instrumental in helping 

individual examiners prepare for Daubert and Kelly-Frye admissibility challenges (see the SWGGUN “ARK 

Resources”). Likewise, SWGDRUG has a world-class library of drug-monographs and mass-spec library. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 152 of 337
Page 3 of 3

CAC Position Statement on NIST Guidance Groups Structure, Composition, and Administration

Impact of the Guidance Groups 

“To what extent does membership and transparency impact possible adoption of guidance at the state and 

local level?”

The answer to this question is that the membership composition of these groups, and the transparency with 

which they operate, will have the utmost impact on the acceptance of guidance at all levels. Respect for an 

organization’s methods and purposes are effectively established when the people they serve are being 

accurately represented and when the organization’s dealings are open and accessible. This is true from student 

clubs, to professional organizations, and even to governments around the globe. If the Guidance Groups lack 

the respect of the scientists they are intended to guide, any guidance they suggest is unlikely to be adopted. 

Scope of the Guidance Groups 

This area addresses questions that could be answered through discussion of these important topics. 

Undoubtedly, there would be many opinions offered in response to the posed questions. However, the CAC 

does not currently hold a strong position on any of them. To reiterate, the main concern expressed by our 

members is that their opinions on these issues be represented and considered in a meaningful way via 

representation in the Guidance Groups making the final decisions and/or recommendations. 

Conclusion

It is the opinion of the California Association of Criminalists that the formation of discipline-specific 

Guidance Groups could have a very positive impact on the practice of forensic science in the United States, 

provided the following: 

1. The composition of each group reflect the fact that a vast majority of the casework-trained, practicing

forensic scientists in each discipline are working at the State and local level.

2. Relevant professional organizations be involved in the creation, composition, and maintenance of these

groups.

3. The groups conduct their business with transparency, considering the input of all appropriate

stakeholders before making their recommendations.

Approved November 12, 2013 by the California Association of Criminalists Board of Directors. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 153 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 154 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 155 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 156 of 337
Response from Erin N. Henry of Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation 

Hi!Ms.!Ballou,

!!

Here!are!some!thoughts!from!our!laboratory!staff!regarding!the!structure!and!organization!of!Forensic!

Science!Guidance!Groups.!!Thank!you!for!the!opportunity!to!provide!feedback.!!!

!!

Thoughts!on!Representation:

!!

1. The!Guidance!Groups!should!be!comprised!of!a!majority!(at!least!75%)!of!current,!proficiency!

tested!practitioners!in!the!discipline!represented!by!the!working!group.!!This!helps!ensure!that!

any!guidance!is!evaluated!from!the!bench!level!perspective!to!ensure!that!it!can!be!

implemented!feasibly!and!without!unnecessary increases!in!overhead!or!decreases!in!efficiency.

2. The!other!25%!should!provide!balanced!representation!of!other!stakeholders!–!laboratory!

managers/directors,!attorneys,!researchers,!etc.

3. The!Guidance!Groups!membership!should!be!evenly!representative!of!federal,!state,!and!local!

practitioners!from!each!region!of!the!country.!!Such!representation!promotes!a!thorough!

evaluation!of!guidance!from!all!sizes!and!organizational!structures!of!labs!and!lab!systems.!!Even!

representation!from!all!regions!of!the!country!helps!ensure!that!guidance!addresses!all!issues!

seen!within!a!discipline!and!does!not!become!overly!focused!on!issues!only!seen!in!one!

region.!!For!example,!a!guidance!group!on!controlled!substances!without!even!distribution!may!

focus!on!techniques!used!for!particular!drugs!of!abuse!which!are!prevalent!in!one!region!of!the!

country,!but!not!another.

4. As!necessary!and!appropriate,!representatives!from!other!countries!should!be!considered.!

5. Representatives!(at!least!practitioner!representatives)!should!be!from!accredited!

laboratories.!!It!was!felt!that!independent!“experts”!who!may!not!be!associated!with!any!

laboratory,!much!less!an!accredited!lab!would!not!be!appropriate!representatives!in!a!Guidance!

Group.!!!

6. Decision!for!selection!of!representatives!should!be!given!to!an!outside!entity!in!order!to!provide!

a!more!effective!selection!process.!!One!of!the!concerns!noted!with!the!current!SWG’s!was!that!

membership!was!heavily!based!on!“who!you!know.”!!While!there!are!definitely!well!known,!

intelligent!individuals!serving!on!SWG’s!this!networking!based!selection!process!limits!the!

candidate!pool!to!individuals!who!are!good!at!making!a!name!for!themselves.!!There!are!

countless!candidates!with!indispensible!contributions!which!are!overlooked!by!this!

system.!!There!needs!to!be!an!open!application!process,!with!requirements!to!have!a!specific!

amount!of!casework!experience!and!then!an! objective!selection!process!to!fill!these!positions.

7. All!positions!on!the!Guidance!Groups!should!have!term!limits.!!Positions!should!also!be!

staggered!so!that!in!combination!with!term!limits,!there!is!continuity!and!institutional!memory!

while!still!ensuring!new!ideas!and!growth within!the!group.!!In!addition,!term!limits!increase!the!

number!of!individuals!who!can!serve!over!time.!!Individuals!who!serve!with!this!type!of!group!

will!bring!back!valuable!information!to!their!agency!and!co]workers.

8. Term!limits!should!be!applied!to!an!extent!to!agencies!and!states,!at!least!to!avoid!the!same!

agency!or!state!serving!back!to!back!and!continual!terms.!!!

9. Practitioner!positions!should!be!forfeited!upon!completion!for!individuals!who!due!to!

promotion,!retirement,!or!other!job!changes!no!longer!meet!the!requirements!of!the!

practitioner!representative!position.!!(This!could!be!redundant!depending!on!how!term!limits!

are!defined.)

10. A!portion!of!representatives!should!be!qualified!and!active!accreditation!assessors.!!This!will!

help!provide!input!from!assessors!regarding!issues!that!may!need!to!be!addressed.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 157 of 337
Response from Erin N. Henry of Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation 

11. Representation!should!not!be!based!on!any!fee]based!system.!!Implementing!any!fee]based!

structure!(even!a!scaled!structure)!would!only!serve!to!limit!the!individuals who!could!serve!on!a!

Guidance!Group.!!!

!!

Thoughts!on!Impact:!!!

!!

1. The!possibility!to!pair!the!Guidance!Groups!with!a!standards!development!organization!(SDO)!

creates!several!challenges!and!would!likely!be!detrimental.!!First,!pairing!with!an!SDO!creates!

further!separation!between!the!policy!makers!and!the!practitioners.!!More!concerning!however!

would!be!the!delays!between!implementing!guidance!or!standards!and!the!ability!to!revise!the!

guidance!given.!!Guidance!documents!produced!by!these!Guidance Groups!are!much!like!

laboratory!policies!and!procedures.!!They!need!to!be!viewed!as!living!documents!which!

unequivocally!will!change!over!time.!!Using!ISO!as!an!example!of!an!SDO,!it!is!likely!that!issuing!

guidance!in!this!manner!would!result!in!delays!of several!years!between!when!changes!may!be!

needed!and!when!they!are!actually!communicated.

2. Determining!the!implementation!of!guidance!documents!should!be!handled!through!

accrediting!bodies.!!Implementing!standards!or!requiring!compliance!in!any!other!fashion!

increases!the!likelihood!that!there!will!be!unintended!and!negative!consequences.!!Accrediting!

bodies!have!the!benefit!of!assessing!a!laboratory’s!practices!on]site.! This!allows!them!to!make!a!

more!informed!determination!about!whether!the!lab’s!practices!are!appropriate!based!on!

guidance!documents.!

3. Oversight!of!the!Guidance!Groups!in!terms!of!how!the!groups!operate!and!how!money!is!

distributed!should!be!handled!by!NIST.!!This!will!help!avoid!a!predominance!of!any!one!or!more!

federal!laboratories!steering!guidance!in!a!particular!direction.! Decisions!regarding!guidance!to!

be!provided!should!remain!with!the!balanced!membership!selected.

!!

Thoughts!on!Communication/Transparency:

!!

1. Guidance!Groups!should!be!designed!to!ensure!transparency!in!the!membership!selection!and!

decision!making!process.!!By]laws!and!procedures!for!selecting!membership!should!be!

published!on!a!website!for!the!Guidance!Group.

2. Meetings!of!the!Guidance!Groups!and!any!committees!or!sub]committees!created!should!be!

broadcast!in!the!same!fashion!as!Senate!hearings.!!Notice!of!meetings!and!agendas!for!the!

meetings!should!be!published!in!advance!in!order!to!enable!forensic!scientists!throughout!the!

community!to!listen!to!the!discussion.!!This!will!allow!all forensic!scientists!to!better!understand!

the!issue!being!discussed,!implement!improvements!sooner!if!needed!(without!waiting!for!

official!guidance),!and!provide!more!applicable!feedback!during!any!public!comment!period.

3. Some!type!of!list!serve!or voluntary!meeting!notification!system!must!be!implemented!to!insure!

that!individuals!are!notified!(based!on!their!own!request)!of!meeting!times!and!

publications.!!The!system!should!allow!individuals!to!select!the!particular!Guidance!Group!or!

discipline!which!they!wish!to!be!notified!about.

4. One!comment!was!that!SWGFAST!has!started!responding!to!comments!made!during!the!public!

comment!period.!!This!provides!valuable!communication!and!should!be!required!for!the!

Guidance!Groups.

!!

Scope!of!Guidance!Groups:!

!!

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 158 of 337
Response from Erin N. Henry of Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation 

1. The!current!SWG’s!should!be!carried!forward!and!transitioned!to!meet!the!membership!and!

other!criteria!set!forth!above.!!This!allows!the!current!SWG’s!to!continue!providing!guidance!

instead!of!creating!a!vacuum!of!guidance!during!transition.

2. With!additional!funding,!the!current!SWG’s!would!be!better!able!to!meet!the!goals!of!the!

Guiadance!Groups.

3. While!there!may!be!opportunities!to!develop!collaborations!between!Guidance!Groups!

(Chemistry!based!disciplines,!Biology,!Comparative!Sciences,!Digital!Evidence,!Terrorism,!etc)!

there!will!still!need!to!be!individual!guidance!given!to!each!forensic!science!discipline!(and!in!

some!cases!each!category!of!testing).

4. Crime!scene!and!evidence!collection!also!need!to!be!addressed!by!the!Guidance!

Groups.!!Without!adequate!guidance!in!these!areas,!the!results!of!any!forensic!analyses!are!

suspect.

5. It!may!be!beneficial!to!have!a!Guidance!Group!for!courtroom!issues.!!Evaluating!rules!of!

evidence!in!court,!providing!adequate!training!for!attorneys!and!judges!is!also!a!critical!part!of!

making!our!criminal!justice!system!work.

!!

Thanks,

!!

Erin N. Henry

Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation

Criminalistics Administrator

Quality Manager

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 159 of 337
1 

ASCLD Comments Regarding NIST Guidance Groups 

The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) applauds efforts to advance forensic science and 

provide “a framework for coordination across forensic science disciplines,” however; we have concerns with the 

proposed model and the direction toward which the questions in the Federal Register appear to be leading the 

audience. Please find below our specific thoughts: 

1) Structure: We strongly believe any new framework must build off of the existing model(s) of the current

Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) and include a formal coordinating body. Scientific Working Groups have

a very productive history of strong leadership. SWGs have researched and aided implementation of industry

standards, provided technical guidance, recommended best practices, provided training and education,

supported forensic meetings, and engaged their discipline practitioners on ALL levels of government and

even internationally. SWG members are dedicated professionals who recognize the importance of their work.

What they lack is a coordinating body and consistent support, including funding. We do not believe the

proposed guidance groups will solve that problem as they appear to be based on foundational science, rather

than applied, discipline-specific science and lack the single coordinating factor of an Office of Forensic

Science. In fact, we believe the proposed solution will be costly, divisive, and disruptive to the forensic

science community. We do believe a federal entity should play the role of coordinator and be supportive of

the efforts and the model as proposed in Senator Leahy’s July 2012 version of S132, the Criminal Justice and

Forensic Science Reform Act of 2011, for an Office of Forensic Science in the Department of Justice with a

Board of 11 scientists, 6 of whom are practitioners providing guidance to Committees. However, we believe

those Committees should be the current SWGs. We are also concerned with the statement made in the

Federal Register that the proposed Guidance Groups would not report to DOJ or NIST. If this is the case,

how will coordination be achieved and where will the leadership come from? There are several international

models from which to glean information toward advancement of the existing system in addition to the

legislation currently being written by Senator Leahy and Senator Cornyn:

i) The Australian National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) is successful in supporting the

development and propagation of forensic science that works on a daily basis with Specialist Advisory

Groups (SAGs) (8 of them) covering a broad range of disciplines within the forensic sciences. It

develops Annual Action Plans with the SAGs which identify and prioritize work plans to resolve

pressing technical and scientific needs. This has assisted in reaching national agreement on issues

such as standards, accreditation, certification, R&D and education and training. The core functions of

NIFS are: 1) sponsor and support research in forensic science; 2) assistance with the development and

co-ordination of forensic science services between jurisdictions; 3) facilitation and information

exchange between relevant parties; 4) support, co-ordinate and conduct training programs in forensic

science and 5) co-ordination of the delivery of relevant forensic science quality assurance programs.

ii) The European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) is an organization that implements

mutual agreements to participate and cooperate but accomplishes this without a standards

development organization (SDO). While standards development is important, ENFSI’s level of

cooperation, information exchange, consensus standards, proficiency testing sharing, etc. is a good

model to emulate, especially when implementing forensic processes for such a huge, multijurisdictional, legal community as the United States, which bases its consensus on a voluntary system.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 160 of 337
2 

2) Impact: The question of impact and how to best address the matters relating to the operation of a crime

laboratory is quite simple. For instance, in most states, to date, accreditation and certification have been

voluntary. While ASCLD certainly supports the idea of accreditation for all crime laboratories, mandating

this on the federal level without the proper organization and funding essentially creates an unfunded mandate

that makes implementation impossible. Accreditation and certification is necessary and receipt of federal

funds should be contingent on compliance or work towards compliance. A similar strategy could be used by

the Office of Forensic Science to encourage laboratories to adopt the recommendations made by the SWGs.

Research needs and priorities must be developed with a strong input from the practitioners who deal with the

issues on a daily basis. Again, the model proposed by Senator Leahy is movement in the right direction.

3) Representation: The premise behind these questions is flawed. The SWGs should remain predominately

represented by the practitioner community as they deal with matters which relate to and directly impact the

operation of a crime laboratory. The best resource for suggesting best practices and developing research

priorities are the scientists who actually do the work every day. SWGs are vital to crime laboratories as the

published standards for each forensic discipline are used for the development of validation plans, training and

research programs, and laboratory procedures. In order for the SWGs to be more effective and efficient, there

must be coordination from an Office of Forensic Science devoted to ensuring the SWGs meet regularly,

providing a budget foundation and disseminating forensic discipline documentation.

4) Scope: As we stated above, all Scientific Working Groups, including Digital Evidence, should be moved to

become the basis for the Sub-committees. They should not be grouped into larger “related” Committees,

however, as the discipline specific details and nuances will be diluted. While there may be similarities in

equipment and analysis schemes such as in Drug Analysis and Toxicology, there are significant differences

such as solid dosage forms as opposed to concentrations of drugs and metabolites extracted from various

matrices. Similarly, while latent prints and firearms identification are both types of pattern evidence, there

remain many differences in how the patterns are made or applied and issues of distortion or reproducibility,

etc. The discipline specific committees must remain as the standard setting group, without having the work

product filtered through a hierarchy of committees/boards.

ASCLD supports efforts to strengthen Forensic Science. Unfortunately, the Federal Register solicitation appears 

to present the foregone conclusion that SWGs will be dismantled and replaced with NIST Guidance Groups and, 

at the same time, asks for comments on positive aspects of the current SWGs to emulate. This feels like a “create 

something new just because” approach which has ASCLD questioning whether this is a wise or fiscally prudent 

way to strengthen Forensic Science. 

Jay Henry 

ASCLD President 

November 7, 2013 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 161 of 337
Response from Laura Hernandez 

I!do!have!a!few!concerns!about!what!was!suggested!in!the!Federal!Register!on!September!27th regarding!

the!creation!of!a!guidance!groups!for!forensic!disciplines.

Scientists!love!acronyms.!!The!acronym!for!the!Commission!can!easily!be!confused!with!the!acronym!for!

the!National!Center!for!Forensic!Sciences.!!This!may!cause!some!confusion.

I!have!strong!concerns!that!NIST!will!be!over!shadowing!the!SWGs!that!have!already!been!

formed.!!These!are!groups!composed!of!individuals!who!have!donated!a!significant amount!of!time!and!

resources!to!improve!the!quality!of!the!disciplines!they!work!in.!!They!brought!to!the!table!the!concerns!

of!all!levels!of!government/practitioners,!listened!to!what!was!needed!and!what!labs!could!feasibly!do!

to!improve.!!To!have!another!organization!come!in!and!take!over!might!be!troubling!for!the!people!who!

took!the!initiative!far!before!the!publication!of!the!NAS!report.!!!

• Standards!exceeding!what!labs!can!reasonably!obtain.

In!a!perfect!world!we!would!use!the!best!trained!individuals!equipped!with!the!latest!and!

greatest!equipment!and!compare!their!unknowns!with!the!best!quality!standards!money!can!

buy.!!We!don’t!live!in!that!world.!!Many!labs!struggle!with!older!equipment,!have!difficulties!

finding!cost!effective!training!to!stay!up!with!the!changes!and!challenges!they!are!faced!with,!

and!struggle!with!the!fact!that!sometimes!the!standards!aren’t!even!available.!!While!NIST!is!one!

of!the!best!for!quality!testing!and!data,!I!am!concerned!with!the!level!they!will!be!asking!labs!to!

rise!to,!and!if!that!level!is!fiscally!reasonable!without!significant!federal!financial!support.!!!

• Stakeholders!and!Redundant!interests

There!was!mention!of!stakeholders.!!Some!of!the!SWGs!are!composed!of!members!who!do!have!

redundant!interests.!!There!are!disciplines!that!have!too!small!a!community!to!not!allow!

this.!!Also,!it!doesn’t!make!sense.!!Have!you!ever!sat!in!a!Unit!and!had!all!the!scientists!agree?!!It!

doesn’t!happen.!!If!labs/universities/etc.!were!limited!to!one!member!per!organization!the!

groups!could!be!missing!a!lot.!!Plus,!it!could!be!disappointing!and!counterproductive!if!current!

members!were!removed!because!of!this.!!They!have!volunteered!their!time,!effort!and!expertise!

to!improving!the!quality!of!the!analysis!performed!in!their!discipline.!Does!this!mean!these!

individuals!no!longer!have!value!to!the!process?!!This!sends!the!wrong!message!to!the!forensic!

community.

• Merging!multiple!SWGs!

I’m!not!really!seeing!this!one.!!For!the!established!groups!it!doesn’t!make!sense.!!If!they!felt!that!

combining!into!a!larger!conglomerate!would!be!beneficial!they!could!have!done!so!

already.!!Some!of!the!smaller!ones!are!more!specialized!for!a!good!reason.!!Trying!to!

incorporate!them!into!other!groups!could!lead!to!someone!trying!to!force!standards!that!are!

unrealistic.!!Worse,!we!would!be!asking!people!who!are!not!qualified!in!the!discipline!to!help!

direct!standards!used!in!those!fields.!!One!of!the!quickest!ways!to!defeat!the!process!is!to!have!

people!making!decisions!without!fully!understanding!the!underlying!why’s!and!how’s.!!!

My!comments!may!not!be!noteworthy!but!as!a!bench!analyst!and!an!active!member!of!the!forensic!

community!I!am!very!mindful!of!the!challenges!facing!laboratories.!!Like!many!out!there,!I’m!biting!on!

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 162 of 337
Response from Laura Hernandez 

my!fingernails!hoping!that!the!smarter!people!who!are!making!these!decisions!know!what!is!in!the!best!

interest!for!all!of!us.!!It!seems!to!me!that!the!established!and!productive!SWGs!should!be!left!to!their!

own!devices.!!A!suggestion!would!be!to!maintain!the!current!SWGS!and!have!them!report!to!the!

Commission!instead!of!being!dismantled!or!retooled.!!Perhaps!it!is!the!disciplines!that!are!in!need!of!

guidance!groups!that!should!be!affected!the!most.!!If!there!is!some!need!for!a!crossSdisciplinary!group,!

the!perhaps!that!is!a!separate!group that!can!be!established!as!well.!!In!the!end,!I!hope!the!established!

and!productive!groups!are!given!all!due!respect!and!allowed!to!continue!their!important!work.!!!

Disclaimer

This%e'mail%contains%the%thoughts%and%opinions%of%Laura%Hernandez%and%does%not represent%official%New%

Mexico%Department%of%Public%Safety’s%policy.

Laura Hernandez

DPS Southern Forensic Laboratory 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 163 of 337
Response from Dwane S. Hilderbrand of Forensic ITC Services 

Forensic ITC Services

Dear NIST, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

c/o Susan Ballou 

100 Bureau Drive 

Mailstop 8102 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Reference: Guidance Groups under SWG’s. 

Dear NIST, 

First let me take a moment and introduce myself. I am a private trainer and consultant, and I own 

and manage Forensic ITC Services. I am a retired criminalist who has also served on the 

International Association for Identification’s Footwear and Tire Track subcommittee and Board 

of Directors. I have been involved with footwear and tires for more than 32 years. I work 

footwear and tire track cases both for the defense and the prosecution, and I believe in our 

standards. All of my cases, privately, are technically reviewed and verified by a second qualified 

examiner, because I was “raised” under ASCLD-LAB’s policy and procedures. I personally 

wrote the policies and procedures manual and the training manual for footwear and tire track 

casework and trainees for the Scottsdale Police Department, Scottsdale, Arizona. 

I am writing to you with a sadden heart. There are many things starting to change within our 

sciences, SWG groups as we know them are now going away and becoming Guidance Groups. I 

hoping they become truly a guidance group. 

I wanted to write and express my thoughts to you. First, let it be known I absolutely, without 

question, believe ACE-V is the only legitimate way to describe, and do, a comparative process. 

ACE-V is an acronym that stands for process, procedure and method that we use to compare and 

identify things; Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation and Verification (Peer Review). 

ACE-V has a long history within forensic science starting sometime around 1959 where Huber 

first describes it as “ACE” and applied it to the comparative sciences. Huber describes the peer 

review but never called it Verification. In 1972-Harold Tuthill describes this methodology in his 

book entitled, Individualization: Principles and Procedures in Criminalistics and again in his 

second edition in 1994. Forensic Tire Impression Identification written by Lauren Nause states: 

"Four Basic Stages of the Identification Process" and goes on to list them as Analysis, 

Comparison, Evaluation and Verification of opinion (Chapter 13 page 224). In 1980-Footwear 

Identification written by Mike Cassidy states again the ACE methodology and it practical use in 

9688 E. Davenport Drive • Scottsdale • Arizona • 85260

www.forensicitc.com

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 164 of 337
Response from Dwane S. Hilderbrand of Forensic ITC Services 

the comparative sciences (Chapter 5 page 91). In 1999-David Ashbaugh wrote, QuantitativeQualitative Friction Ridge Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Ridgeology where 

he goes into detail about the use of ACE-V. Stephen McKasson wrote Speaking as an Expert that 

looks at comparative sciences and how ACE-V applies to ALL of them. 

Everyone on the present SWGTREAD is a practicing FW/TT examiner. Because FW/TT is a 

sub-discipline in all labs except the FBI, we all have secondary disciplines and therefore have 

different backgrounds. The people with Questioned Documents, Trace or Crime scene as their 

secondary disciplines weren’t trained in ACE-V therefore they don’t understand it. This could be 

because of the lack of training and or the misunderstanding of what it really is. 

I have taught three different complete training programs in footwear and tire tracks sciences; two 

(2) for National Forensic Science Technology Center in Clearwater, Florida, and one (1) for the 

St Paul police department. Each program ran a total of nine (9) months. Within these programs I 

always taught and instructed the concepts of ACE-V and how it is applied. These programs had 

contained many of the other forensic disciplines. 

SWGTREAD has had many of the same members for almost 10 years and I feel it is time for a 

change. New members create new thoughts and new ideas. There are even some of those 

members I feel that have a lack of a scientific attitude which is detrimental to this 

discipline. SWGTREAD needs fresh blood and people who truly represent the discipline as it is 

now, not ten years ago. 

ACE-V was acknowledged in various forms during Mr. Bob Garrett’s Presidency of the 

International Association for Identification, including the IAI's Standardization II Report. In the 

past year or so, I think, the IAI Board of Directors did pass a resolution requiring the Science and 

Practice Committees and Certification Boards to adopt the relevant SWG standards for their 

respective disciplines. Unfortunately SWGTREAD does not mention ACE-V or any form of 

Verification. ACE-V has been adopted by SWGFAST as the methodology to be used by 

examiners. It is also acknowledged in the NIJ Human Factors report on Latent Print 

Examination. The flow chart for the ACE-V process which was created by the Human Factors 

Expert Working Group was adopted by SWGFAST and included in their standard on ACE-V. 

I cannot for the life of me understand why we; the Footwear and Tire Track Examiner’s 

Community cannot seem to agree on this. I am only voicing my opinion. I absolutely, without 

question, believe ACE-V is the only legitimate way to describe, and do, a comparative process. I 

have taught it for years and yes I am well aware of some individuals on SWGTREAD that fight 

this, but I also believe that many of the present day examiners have their work verified, so what 

is the issue? I also understand that SWGTREAD can't compel practitioners (including private 

practitioners) to abide by their standards, but by having good standards in place and good 

instructors teaching them the idea becomes reality, plus having recognized professional 

organization supporting them. I run into many examiners both new and old that DO in fact refer 

to SWGTREAD standards. A standard in place that spells out “Verification” demonstrates a 

strong forensic group that is not afraid of peer review, plus the last time I looked “Peer Review” 

is also a part of Daubert. I have preached, taught and supported SWGTREAD Standards for 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 165 of 337
Response from Dwane S. Hilderbrand of Forensic ITC Services 

years. Only to find out they do not support our methodology of comparison or the verification of 

conclusions. 

Verification is critical as a Standard. But even though it is critical I find many agencies that 1) do 

not require it, and 2) do not really care. I had one agency tell me ASCLD does not “require” 

verifications so we do not require our examiners to do it. Only to find out that ASCLD-LAB is 

adopting the ISO 17025 standards and anyone currently accredited under ASCLD-LAB will have 

to adopt those standards. Under ISO 5.9.1 it talks about reviews and controls. This document 

says “shall have.” Also, when the laboratory is being audited for reaccreditation the auditors are 

going to make sure that lab is doing what the rest of the discipline is doing whether or not it is in 

the standard, required by the standard or suggested by the standard. The auditors will hold that 

discipline accountable for not doing what the rest of the field is doing. That’s the problem with 

the SWGs. They are considered the standards for that discipline. So if you are testifying that you 

use the ACE-V methodology it will appear you are not following the standards set by the FW/TT 

field. This is one the main arguments. It has to be included in the standards if for only that 

reason. 

Any endeavor of science relies on some type of peer review as a means to ensure that a sound 

process was followed and the result of the testing is reliable and repeatable. The reason the 

latent print field leans toward verification of only the positive associations is two-fold, in my 

opinion. First, it relies on the argument that anything other than a positive association is not 

likely to get an individual prosecuted and hence it's not considered a "critical" result. The second 

I think is just a combination of resource and time management (get the cases in and get them out) 

and some level of pure laziness. I feel that all identifications should be verified. However, we in 

the footwear and tire field have positive associations and positive eliminations which are likely 

to get an individual prosecuted and or released, and hence be considered a "critical" result and 

these also should be verified. By having good standards in place does not mean everyone will 

agree or follow them but it does tell the world we as a forensic science community are willing to 

set standards within our own practice that we strongly believe in and agree with. Here lies the 

BIGGEST issue in forensic science...We cannot agree and yet we wonder why defense 

attorney’s criticize us. 

Now is the time to react. I am asking for your support. What we do today will benefit and define 

us tomorrow. Diane Grant once said, “It’s better to walk alone, than with a crowd going in the 

wrong direction”. 

Respectfully, 

Dwane S. Hilderbrand, M. Ed 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 166 of 337
33405 8th Avenue South 

Federal Way, Washington 98003 

Tel: 253-383-3617

Toll Free Tel: 800-346-2674

Fax: 253-591-8856 

MorphoTrak 

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS Tel: (703) 797-2600

113 So. Columbus Street, Suite 400 Fax: (703) 706-9549

Alexandria, VA 22314 www.morphotrak.com 

November 12, 2013 

Ms. Susan Ballou, Program Manager for Forensic Science 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

100 Bureau Drive, Mailstop 8102 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Email: susan.ballou@nist.gov 

Ref: Possible Models for the Administration and Support of Discipline-Specific Guidance 

Groups for Forensic Science 

Via: Email 

Dear Ms. Ballou: 

In the Notice of Inquiry published in the Federal Register on September 27, 2013, the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) invited interested parties to provide 

their perspectives on the appropriate model for NIST administration and support of disciplinespecific Guidance Groups to be established pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and NIST. 

As a biometric vendor, MorphoTrak has employees who have participated in working groups 

for the International Association for Identification (IAI), International Committee for 

Information Technology Standards (INCITS)/M1, NIST Information Technology Laboratory 

(ITL), and the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology 

(SWGFAST). The success of NIST’s Guidance Groups will be dictated by the degree of 

involvement of all the stakeholders, which should include forensic researchers, forensic 

practitioners, NIST, and forensic/biometric vendors. Working groups such as NIST ITL and 

INCITS/M1 have been successful in creating national and international standards because of 

their balanced and diverse voting body that takes into account current and emerging 

technologies. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 167 of 337
Response to NIST Notice of Inquiry, Page 2 

MorphoTrak 

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS Tel: (703) 797-2600

113 So. Columbus Street, Suite 400 Fax: (703) 706-9549

Alexandria, VA 22314 www.morphotrak.com 

MorphoTrak makes the following recommendations to help create effective Guidance 

Groups: 

Structure of the Guidance Groups 

Given the scope and principles of the Guidance Groups outlined here, what are structural 

models that could best support the Guidance Groups, taking into account the technical, 

policy, legal, and operational aspects of forensic science? 

The NIST Guidance Groups should be structured to have a balanced and diverse voting 

body that includes at a minimum NIST, forensic researchers, forensic/biometric vendor 

technical experts, biometric RFP consultants, and biometric system users. 

What elements or models would facilitate the sharing of best practices and uniform practices 

across the Guidance Groups? 

In the briefing on Guidance Groups Ms. Ballou presented at the IAI, she indicated that the 

Guidance Groups would be dispersed to different divisions/disciplines within NIST, with some 

reporting into the Physics division and some reporting into the Digital division. We believe 

that dispersing the Guidance Groups could hinder uniform practices across the groups. 

Are there public policies or private sector initiatives in other countries that have successfully 

strengthened the nation’s use of forensic science by supporting the development and 

propagation of forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of 

forensic science research and measurement standards, and verifying the scientific basis 

exists for each discipline? If so, what are they? 

We refer you to the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI). The purpose 

of ENFSI is to share knowledge, exchange experiences, and come to mutual agreements in 

the field of forensic science. ENFSI is recognized as an expert group in the field of forensic 

sciences. ENFSI is recognized as a pre-eminent voice in forensic science worldwide by 

ensuring the quality of development and delivery of forensic science throughout Europe. 

ENFSI activities include: organizing meetings and scientific seminars, sponsoring 

collaborative studies and proficiency tests, advising relevant partners on forensic issues, and 

publishing best practice manuals of forensic terms. 

What are the elements which make existing forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) 

successful? Are there examples of best practices in specific SWGs that ought to be 

replicated in Guidance Groups? If so, what are they? 

MorphoTrak declines to provide a response. 

Would partnership with a standards development organization (SDO) in which the standard is 

issued by the SDO present any obstacle for participation by a broad range of forensics 

science stakeholders in the development of a standard? If so, why? 

Would partnership with an SDO in which the standard is issued by the SDO present any 

obstacle to broad adoption of a standard? If so, why? 

In regard to a possible partnership with a standards development organization (SDO), we 

believe the model that NIST used in the past with the INCITS/M1 committee would not 

present any obstacle for participation by a broad range of forensics science stakeholders in 

the development of a standard. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 168 of 337
Response to NIST Notice of Inquiry, Page 3 

MorphoTrak 

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS Tel: (703) 797-2600

113 So. Columbus Street, Suite 400 Fax: (703) 706-9549

Alexandria, VA 22314 www.morphotrak.com 

Would a fee-based membership model run through a not-for-profit organization (similar to the 

National Conference of Weights and Measures) present a significant obstacle for 

participation? 

In order to encourage the broadest participation, NIST should not require a fee for 

membership in Guidance Groups. Vendor members provide time and travel for their 

employees; this should be viewed as a funding contribution. 

If the Guidance Groups followed a fee-based membership model, are there appropriatelytiered systems for fees that would prevent ‘‘pricing out’’ organizations, including individuals?

MorphoTrak declines to provide a response. 

Other than a privatized model, are there other means to maintain a governance or 

coordinating body in the long term? If possible, please give examples of existing structures 

and their positive and negative attributes. 

MorphoTrak declines to provide a response. 

Impact of Guidance Groups 

Given that the Guidance Groups cannot mandate the adoption of standards, what can they 

do to best leverage their position and encourage adoption? To what extent does membership 

and transparency impact possible adoption of guidance at the state and local level? 

NIST should consider an international interchange of the guidelines that will be created by 

the Guidance Groups. The INCITS/M1 committee serves as the U.S. Technical Advisory 

Group for the international ISO SC37 and has been very successful in creating standards 

that have been adopted internationally. 

The guidelines should be based on “real-world” use cases and testing that can demonstrate 

the need for the recommendations. 

Are there best practices or models to consider with regard to a structure that would 

encourage effective communication with the scientific community to explore research gaps 

and aid in recognizing research priorities? 

We believe comprehensive communication processes should be created to disperse meeting 

agendas, disseminate guidelines for review, and collect reviews. Communications can be 

enhanced through portal web sites, social media sites, and email. The Guidance Groups 

should be involved in conferences to communicate guidelines that are being considered, and 

to disseminate and receive feedback. 

How should NIST researchers engage with the Guidance Groups in support of the goal to 

strengthen the nation’s use of forensic science by supporting the development and 

propagation of forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of 

forensic science research and measurement standards, and verifying the scientific basis 

exists for each discipline? 

NIST would benefit from instituting an open review process that allows the forensic 

community to provide feedback and comments. It appears that the effectiveness of some of 

the SWG groups may have been adversely impacted by the lack of buy-in from the general 

forensic community, for example, the National Academy of Sciences. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 169 of 337
Response to NIST Notice of Inquiry, Page 4 

MorphoTrak 

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS Tel: (703) 797-2600

113 So. Columbus Street, Suite 400 Fax: (703) 706-9549

Alexandria, VA 22314 www.morphotrak.com 

Representation in the Guidance Groups 

Who are the stakeholders who should be represented on the Guidance Groups? What steps 

can NIST take to ensure appropriately broad representation within the Guidance Groups? 

What does balanced representation mean and how can it be achieved? 

It is critical that researchers and forensic technologists from the vendor community be 

allowed to be members of the Guidance Groups. This will not only help keep the Guidance 

Groups attuned to the latest commercial breakthroughs in forensic technologies (which can 

often leap-frog academic breakthroughs), but could also help ensure that the applications 

and tools provided by vendors to forensic practitioners incorporate NIST guidance. 

Technology experts should be involved so that business process guidelines take into account 

current and emerging technologies that can help improve the business process. 

In addition to technology experts, stakeholders should include users of biometric technology 

and those within the vendor community who interface with them. This group of individuals 

includes administrators, examiners, project managers and product managers who can 

provide input into the direction (roadmap) of biometrics. 

What is the best way to engage organizations playing a role in forensic science, standards 

development and practice? 

MorphoTrak declines to provide a response. 

How should interested parties who may not be direct participants in Guidance Groups, 

engage in a meaningful way to have an impact on issues in front of the Guidance Groups? 

The best way for interested parties who may not be direct participants in Guidance Groups to 

engage in Guidance Group issues would be for NIST to sponsor workshops that invite a 

wider audience to attend. Another mechanism would be to use a CANVASSEE process 

similar to the one NIST uses for the ANSI NIST ITL 2011 standards. 

To what extent and in what ways must the Federal government, as well as state, local, tribal 

and territorial governments be involved at the outset? 

We advise that the best method to ensure that the Federal government, as well as state, 

local, tribal and territorial governments are involved at the outset, is to invite Forensic Experts 

from both the FBI and the state, local, tribal and territorial governments to be members, and 

also invite them to the workshops mentioned above. 

Scope of the Guidance Groups 

Should all of the current forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) transition to Guidance 

Groups? 

To alleviate confusion and to improve collaboration, we recommend that all of the current 

forensic SWGs should transition to Guidance Groups. 

Are there broader groupings of forensic science disciplines that could form the basis of 

Guidance Groups than the current group of twenty-one SWGs? If so, what are those 

groupings? 

MorphoTrak declines to provide a response. 

Is there a need for a cross-disciplinary functional approach (i.e. statistical analysis) and how 

could the Guidance Groups be structured to best address that need? 

MorphoTrak declines to provide a response. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 170 of 337
Response to NIST Notice of Inquiry, Page 5 

MorphoTrak 

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS Tel: (703) 797-2600

113 So. Columbus Street, Suite 400 Fax: (703) 706-9549

Alexandria, VA 22314 www.morphotrak.com 

To what extent do Guidance Groups need to support different forensic science disciplines 

differently from one another? 

MorphoTrak declines to provide a response. 

We appreciate this opportunity to provide our input into the administration of these Guidance 

Groups. If you wish to discuss these items in further detail, please feel free to contact us. 

Sincerely, 

Robert Horton 

Sr. Director of Marketing and Communications 

MorphoTrak 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 171 of 337
Response from Vici Inlow 

Good Morning, SueI know you are going to be barraged by suggestions for models, etc. So, I will only 

suggest that to make things go smooth that the business documents be ready to be put 

in place at the first meeting (or you spend the next few meetings creating them) and for 

efficiency cap the number of people participating and/or voting members. Also, a time 

limit for serving is nice or you are stuck with the same people who are not active 

participants and can’t get anything accomplished in a timely manner. Would NIST be 

able to re-place members as the group sees fit, or would it go to a vote of the group? 

A debate by the egocentrics is fun to listen to, but doesn’t accomplish much other than 

wasting production time. 

From the onset let the participants know if the documents are to be guidance or 

proposed standards. As well as expected turnaround times for the documents. 

Let me know if I can help in any way. 

Regards, 

Vici Inlow 

USSS 

Department of Homeland Security 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 172 of 337
Response from Jeff Jacobs of the American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP) 

ASCP Institute for Science, Technology and Policy 

Dear%Ms.%Ballou,%

The%American%Society%for%Clinical%Pathology%(ASCP)%fully%supports%the%position%of%the%National%Association%

of%Medical%Examiners%(NAME)%as%outlined%in%the%attached%letter.%%In%the%NAME%letter,%they%advocate%the%

following%position:

"If%the%current%SWGMDI%transitions%to%a%Guidance%Group,%it%should%increase%the%medical%representation%

by%including%representatives%from%the%College%of%American%Pathologists%and%the%American%Society%for%

Clinical%Pathology%and%medicolegal%death%investigators should%not%be%overKrepresented."%%If%tasked,%ASCP%

would%be%more%than%willing%to%appoint%a%physician%with%the%proper%expertise%to%a%Guidance%Group.

The%ASCP%is%a%501(c)(3)%nonprofit%medical%specialty%society%representing%more%than%100,000%members.%

Our%members%are%board%certified%pathologists,%other%physicians,%clinical%scientists,%certified%medical%

technologists%and%technicians,%and%educators.%ASCP%is%one%of%our%nation's%largest%medical%specialty%

societies%and%is%the%world's%largest%organization%representing%the%field%of%laboratory%medicine%and%

pathology.%As%the%leading%provider%of%continuing%education%for%pathologists%and%medical%laboratory%

personnel,%ASCP%enhances%the%quality%of%the%profession%through%comprehensive%educational%programs,%

publications,%and%selfKassessment%materials.

Sincerely,%%

Jeff

Jeff%Jacobs

Senior%Vice%President

American%Society%for%Clinical%Pathology%(ASCP)%ASCP%Institute%for%Science,%Technology%and%Policy

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 173 of 337
One of the fundamental problems with the way leading bodies behave is the lack of representation of the 

heart of the organization. Orders are issued by those who have not been a part of the day to day activities 

for years. Some are not even competent or proficient in the technologies and procedures they are in 

charge of governing. Although theoretical knowledge is important, practical ability is far superior. If given 

the choice, would you choose a surgeon who has successfully performed the surgery hundreds of times, 

or one who has the knowledge, but has never performed? Ken Kesey best defined leadership when he 

said, “You don’t lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and 

making a case.” 

I am a young analyst and I have only ever been employed at one laboratory. I concede to my 

inexperience and closed view. However, the knowledge I gain every day as I validate instrumentation and 

procedures, examine evidence, interpret mixtures, and testify in court should not be negated because I 

am not a technical leader, have a master’s degree, or administrate CODIS. Who else can tell you the 

troubles experienced when interpreting a mixture better than those who do it daily? 

I hope that the National Institute of Standards and Technology will consider requiring a portion of each 

Guidance Group be case working analysts who dedicate the majority of their time to case work. 

Thanks, Malena B. Jimenez

DNA Casework, Criminalist III

Missouri State Highway Patrol

Crime Laboratory Division

Response from Malena Jimenez

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 174 of 337
Response from Matt Johnson of SWGTREAD 

Page!1 of!8

The!responses!provided!below!were!provided!by!several!current!members!of!SWGTREAD!(The!Scientific!

Working!Group!for!Shoeprint!and!Tire!Tread!Evidence).!!

1.#Structure#of#the#Guidance#Groups

• Given#the#scope#and#principles#of#the#guidance#groups#outlined#here,#what#are#structural#

models#that#could#best#support#the#Guidance#Groups,#taking#into#account#the#technical,#policy,#

legal,#and#operational#aspects#of#forensic#science?#

Forensic!science!is!a!nebulous!concept!in!regards!to!its!operational!aspect!here!in!the!United!

States,!since!there!actually!is!no!forensic!science!operation.!Forensic!science!has!functioned!as!a!

consensusGoriented!entity!that!has!been!governed!by!the!concept!of!standards!being!generally!

accepted!by!the!relevant!scientific!community!and!those!standards!being!acceptable!to!the!

courts.!The!Guidance!Groups (GG),!by!necessity,!must!be!primarily!made!up!of!practitioners,!

with!practitioners!having!final!approval!for!any!standards!being!developed. This!is!necessary!for!

any!standard!to!be!accurate,!implementable,!and!representative!of!a!consensus!among!analysts!

utilizing!the!standard.

The!GGs!frequently!will!need!the!resources!of!information!pertaining!to!political,!legal,!and!

technical!aspects!of!standard!development.!However,!these!resources!should!not!be!in!decisionG

making!rolls!for!the!standards!created.

The!primary!(board)!members!of!the!GG!should!be!forensic practitioners!from!both!the!public!

and!private!sectors!and!represent!local,!state!and!Federal!entities!(as!best!as!possible).!These!

members!should be!responsible!for!the!primary!functions!of!standardizing!the!practices!and!

directing!research!initiatives.!These!members!should have!a!program!management!office!with!

legal,!research,!technology!and!administrative!support!to!remove!this!burden from!GG!

members.!There!need!not!be!regular!membership!of!researchers!or!attorneys!on!each!GG

unless!they!have!particular!skill!sets!germane!to!the!particular!discipline,!but!rather!there!should!

be!a!central!repository!of!support!for!legal!and!research!matters.

• What#elements#or#models#would#facilitate#the#sharing#of#best#practices#and#uniform#practices#

across#the#Guidance#Groups?

There!needs!to!be!a!uniform!standard!operating!procedure!(SOP)!for!all!of!the!GGs!to!operate!

under as!well!as!provide!a!standard!publishing!format!for!the!documents!generated!by!the!GGs.!!

Up!to!this!point,!the!creation!and!subsequent!updating!of!an!operational!SOP!for!the!SWGs!has!

been!a!major!distraction!from!the!SWG’s!primary!function!–!standards!development.

The!operational!SOP!should!be!developed!from!a!representative!group!of!each!of!the!GGs.!!

From!there,!NIST!should!publish!the!SOP!online.!This!SOP!should!provide!guidance!on!how!the!

GGs!should!deal!with!unusual situations and!identify!the!need!to!update!the!SOP!as!needed. The!

GGs!need!to!have!a!uniform!look!and!feel so!as!to!provide!an!easy!transition!from!one!GGs!

documents!to!that!of!another!GG.!There!should!be!a!single!terminology!document!that!

incorporates!all!GGs!terms!that!would!provide!a!central!repository!for!terminology!and!also!

provide!easy!comparison!of!how!the!same!term!is!defined!differently!by!different!disciplines.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 175 of 337
Response from Matt Johnson of SWGTREAD 

Page!2 of!8

• Are#there#public#policies#or#private#sector#initiatives#in#other#countries#that#have#successfully#

strengthened#the#nation’s#use#of#forensic#science#by#supporting#the#development#and#

propagation#of#forensic#science#consensus#documentary#standards,#determining#each#forensic#

science#discipline’s#research#and#measurement#standards#needs#and#ensuring#that#a#sufficient#

scientific#basis#exists#for#each#discipline?##If#so,#what#are#they?

The!European!Network!of!Forensic!Science!Institutes!(ENFSI) implements!mutual!

agreements!to!participate!and!cooperate.!While!the!GGs!should!include!standards!

production,!ENFSI’s!level!of!cooperation,!information!exchange,!consensus!standards,!

proficiency!test!sharing,!etc.,!is!the!only,!implemented!forensic!oversight!organization!for!

such!a!large!multiGjurisdictional/legal/community!arena.!ENFSI!is operated!on!a!voluntary,!

consensusGbased!system.!Because!of!its!success,!many!of!the!SWGs!have!worked!closely!

with!our!international!collogues!at!ENSFI.

• What#are#the#elements#which#make#existing#forensic#science#working#groups#(SWGs)#

successful?##Are#there#examples#of#best#practices#in#specific#SWGs#that#ought#to#be#replicated#

in#Guidance#Groups?##If#so,#what#are#they?#

A!multiGfaceted!approach!to!standard!development!with!its!membership has!made!the!SWGs!

successful.!SWGTREAD!is!made!up!of!experienced!examiners who!are leaders!in!the!forensic!

community.!The!members!were!purposely!chosen!for!diversity!of!employment,!geographic!

location!representation!and!different!background!experiences!in!different!forensic!disciplines.!!

This!diversity!has!led!to!insights!during!the!standard!development!process!that!would!have!been!

otherwise!impossible.

SWGTREAD!utilizes!an!online!discussion!forum!to!facilitate!communication!not!only!from!

SWGTREAD!to!examiners!and!examiners!to!SWGTREAD,!but!also!between!examiners worldwide.!

This!avenue!of!communication!is invaluable!in!both!standard!development!and!standard!

updating.

Some!of!the!most!valuable!resources that!have!come!out!of!the!SWGs!are!standards!(or!best!

practices),!examiner!training!manuals and!court!admissibility!packages!because!they!have!

practical!application for examiners!and!other!members!of!the!forensic!science!community.!The!

primary!methods!for disseminating!these!resources!are!the!SWG’s!website!and!at!professional!

meetings!(through!presentations!or!other!informationGsharing!opportunities).!An!integral!part!of!

the!standard!development!process!for!SWGs!is!the!posting!of!draft!documents!online.!This!

mechanism!provides!the!opportunity!for!members!of!the!forensic!science!community!to!weigh

in!during!draft!comment!periods.!This!process!promotes!transparency and!ensures consensus!of!

a!standard.!SWGs!respond!(normally!in!writing)!to those!individuals!who!comment!on!the!drafts,!

which!provides a!sense!of!ownership!and!encourages!participation!amongst!examiners.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 176 of 337
Response from Matt Johnson of SWGTREAD 

Page!3 of!8

Careful!consideration!is!needed!if!term!limits!are!established!for!members!of!the!GGs,!including!

the!offices!they!hold.!It!is!imperative!that!the!overall!experience!level!of!the!group!be!

maintained.!If!three!years!is!the!term limit!established for membership, the!footwear!and!tire!

track!discipline!would!be!void!of!experience!within!two to!three cycles.!The!GGs!need!members!

with!significant!experience,!including experience drafting!standards.!Examiners!with!this!

experience!are not!common!so they need to!be!preserved!within!the!groups.!The!term!limit!for!

the!office!of!the!Chair!should!be!sufficient!to!enable!the!Chair!to!learn!the!responsibilities!and!

ensure!a!period!of!continuity!within!the!group,!which!normally!takes!several!years.!Natural!

attrition!is!important!since!it!creates!openings for!new!members to!refresh!the!membership.!It!

should!be!up!to!the discretion!of!the Chair!of!each!group!to!identify!and!dismiss!members!who!

do!not!actively!contribute!to!the!productivity!of!the!group.!

Something!to!consider!for!membership!in!the!groups!might!be!to!have!a!core!group!of!legacy!

members!(those!with!significant!experience!in!the!discipline!and!with!standards!development)!

and!then!a!group!of!provisional!members!who!can!be!rotated!in!and!out (perhaps!in!a!3Gyear!

cycle)!until!a!legacy!position!needs!to!be!filled.!This!would!preserve!the!level!of!experience!and!

provide!for!new!membership!and!a!more!inclusive!perception.

• Would#partnership#with#a#standards#development#organization#(SDO)#in#which the#standard#is#

issued#by#the#SDO#present#any#obstacle#for#participation#by#a#broad#range#of#forensics#science#

stakeholders#in#the#development#of#a#standard?##If#so,#why?##

Yes,!it!could!be!helpful!if!the!practioners!don’t!get!bypassed!by!the!SDO!in!final!adoption!of!the!

standard.!Also,!SDOs!tend!to!be!more!overall!conceptGdriven!when!specific!forensic!science!

disciplines!need specific!standards!to!address!actual!evidence!interpretation!and!development.!!

The!fact!that!the!standard!is!the!product!of!practitioners!is!vital!to!the!concept!of!acceptance!

within!the!forensic!science!community.

It!might!be!useful,!at!some!point,!for!the GGs!to develop!their!own!version!of!an!SDO!that!can!

be!tailored!to!the!needs!of!forensic!science!rather!than!science!and!technology,!in!general.!

Forensic!science!is!unique!in!that!the!science!is!dependent!on!the!laws!in!which!the!science!is!

being!practiced. The!standardization!of!published!documents!that!an!SDO!provides is!valuable!in!

many!ways,!but!current!SDOs!may!not provide!a!good!avenue!for!forensic!science!products.!One!

primary!impediment!to!broad!adoption!is!that!SDOs!tend!to!be!fee!and!membershipGbased.!This!

can!be!limiting!in ensuring!all!relevant!parties!are!willing!and!able!to!participate.

• Would#partnership#with#a#standards#development#organization#in#which#the#standard#is#issued#

by#the#SDO#present#any#obstacle#to#broad#adoption#of#a#standard?#If#so,#why?#

It!shouldn’t!as!long!as!resources!are!available!for!various!compliance!and!submission!issues.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 177 of 337
Response from Matt Johnson of SWGTREAD 

Page!4 of!8

• Should#there#be#a#fee#for#representatives#in#the#Guidance#Groups?#Are#there#appropriatelyH

tiered#systems#for#fees#that#would#prevent#“pricing#out”#organizations,#including#individuals?

Any!fee!for!participation!would!“price!out”!some!organizations!and!individuals.!If!anything,!NIST!

should!consider!paying!a!nominal!fee!to!organizations!for!allowing!their!employees!to!

participate (although!many!agencies!may have!difficulty!accepting such!fees).!There!are!many!

analysts!working!for!agencies!who!have!prohibited their!employees!from!participation!with!the!

SWGs!due!to!budgetary!and!staffing!concerns,!even!when!travel!expenses!are!provided by!the!

SWG’s!funding!source.!Organizations!allowing!their!staff!to!participate!are!often!giving!up!that!

person’s!salary!and/or!paying!someone!else!to!staff!their!position!while!they!participate!in!the!

meetings.!!

From!a!financial!standpoint,!it’s!going!to!be!important!for!the!function!and!effectiveness!of!the!

groups!to!have!a!consistent!source!of!funding!for!meetings.!In!the!past!several years,!the!

lengthy!approval!process!for!meetings!has!resulted!in!lastGminute!travel!planning!and!

uncertainty!about!whether!or!not!meetings!would!even!take!place.!These!issues!served!as major!

impediments!to!the!standard!development process for!the!SWGs.!Many!of!the!members!have!

significant!workloads,!court!and!personal!commitments!that!require!sufficient!notice!of!meeting!

dates!in!order!to!facilitate!attendance!for!meetings.!!

• Other#than#fees,#are#there#other#means#to#maintain#governance#or#coordinating#body#in#the#

long#term?#If#possible,#please#give#examples#of#existing#structures#and#their#positive#and#

negative#attributes.

The!GGs!could!work!as!groups!of!volunteers!because it!is!prestige!and!reputation!that!motivate!

participation and!compliance. Also,!it!is!critical!that the!groups!are comprised!of the!top!

people/examiners!in!the!relative!disciplines!with!representation!across!federal,!state,!municipal,!

and!private!examiners.

2.##Impact#of#Guidance#Groups

In#its#role#in#administering#and#supporting#the#Guidance#Groups,#NIST’s#aim#is#to#improve#

discipline#practices#by#advancing#forensic#science#standards#and#techniques#through#a#

collaborative#consensus#building#process#with#Federal,#state#and#local#community#partners.###

NIST#thus#seeks#comments#about#the#ways#in#which#the#structure,#function#and#operation#

would#best#support#the#Guidance#Groups#being#a#catalyst#for#such#improvements.###

•# Given#that#the#Guidance#Groups#cannot#mandate#the#adoption#of#standards,#what#can#they#do#

to#best#leverage#their#position#and#encourage#adoption?##To#what#extent#does#membership#

and#transparency#impact#possible#adoption#of#guidance#at#the#state#and#local#level?

! !

In!all!of!forensic!science,!the!need!for!consensus!to!show!that!a!standard!is!accepted!by!the!

relevant!scientific!community!is!critical.!Examiners!and/or!agencies!that conduct!examinations!

of!evidence!contrary!to!accepted/published!standards!leave!them open!to!significant!challenges!

in!court. Examiners!at!every!level!want!to!follow!quality!standards!that!represent!the!best!

available!way!to!conduct!an!examination.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 178 of 337
Response from Matt Johnson of SWGTREAD 

Page!5 of!8

The!need!for!attracting!and!keeping!the!top!people/examiners!on!the!boards!is!the!most!

important aspect!of!adoption!of!the!standards!produced!at!every!level. If!the!boards!get!to!

heavy!with!inexperienced!examiners,!the!reputation!will!suffer!along!with!the!quality!of!the!

standards!production.

There!needs!to be!marketing!of!the!GGs!in!order!to!establish!them!as!the!premier!repository!of!

forensic!science!expertise!and!standardization!in!the!US.!It!should!be!clearly!communicated!via!

as!many!avenues!as!possible that!the!GGs!are!respected!by!their!peers!and!have!been

recognized.!In!some!respects,!the!GGs!should!be!like the!American!Bar!Association for!forensic!

science;!they!establish!standards!and!increase!awareness!of!specific!issues!relevant!to!their!

community.!There!should!be!strong collaboration!between!all!of!the!GGs,!including!occasional!

meetings!between!all members!of!the!GGs!via!symposiums!or!conferences.

• Are#there#best#practices#or#models#to#consider#with#regard#to#a#structure#that#would#encourage#

effective#communication#with#the#scientific#community#so#that#research is#appropriately#

prioritized#and#conducted?

The!members!of!SWGTREAD!have!seen!firstGhand the!disconnect!between!university!research!

and!practical!application!for!examiners!in!footwear!and!tire!track!evidence!for!many!years!now.!

We!frequently!see!published!research!that!has!been!grant!funded!with little!or!no!casework!

application!and!we!have!identified!changes!in!these studies which!could!have!yielded!significant!

results!had!they!been!implemented!in!the!planning!stages!of!the!research.!SWGTREAD!has!a!

standing!Research!and!Science!committee!with!the!objective!of!identifying!the!research!needs!

for!the!discipline!and!serves!as!the!point!of!contact!for!prospective!research,!validation!and!

scientific!practices.!SWGTREAD!members!have been!very!successful!in!assisting!many!university!

research!projects!to!produce!valuable!information!to!forensic!examiners.

There!should!be!a!nexus!between!NIJ!(and!any!other!research!funding!entities)!and!the!GGs!

(through!NIST).!The!GGs!should!serve!as!the!primary!filter!for!researchers!seeking!funding.!There!

should!be!a!mechanism!for!researchers!to!seek!input!from!the!GGs!prior!to!submitting!a!grant!

application!to!increase!the!likelihood!of!their!research!being!funded!and/or!to!reduce!time!

spent!on!planning!their!projects.!We!strongly!believe!this!will!result!in!the!research!needed!to!

shore!up!the!scientific!basis!for!all!the!disciplines.

• How#should#NIST#researchers#engage#with#the#Guidance#Groups#in#support#of#the#goal#to#

strengthen#the#nation’s#use#of#forensic#science#by#supporting#the#development#and#

propagation#of#forensic#science#consensus#documentary#standards,#determining#each#forensic#

science#discipline’s#research#and#measurement#standards#needs#and#ensuring#that#a#sufficient#

scientific#basis#exists#for#each#discipline?

Having!the!researchers attend!faceGtoGface!meetings!with!the!GG’s!is!frequently more!

productive!than!written!communication!so!they!can!have!a!more!inGdepth!understanding!of!

issues.!The!exchange!encourages!clear!understanding!from!both!sides. It’s!going!to!be!important!

for!the!NIST!researchers!to!fully!understand!the questions!that!need!to!be!answered!with!the!

research.!To!answer!the!question!of!whether!sufficient!scientific!basis!exists!for!the!footwear!

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 179 of 337
Response from Matt Johnson of SWGTREAD 

Page!6 of!8

and!tire!track!discipline!is!a!multiGlevel!question!with!varying!ways!of!asking!the!question.!!Other!

disciplines!may!have!a!narrower!question!in!regards!to!scientific!basis.

Most practitioners!would!agree!that!“sufficient!scientific!basis”!has!been!established!for!the!

traditional!(longstanding)!forensic!sciences,!but!it!is!the!critics!(attorneys,!judges,!and!academia)!

who!consider!the!current!scientific!basis!insufficient.!No!one!would!argue that!it!is!not!good!to!

continue!to!refine!the!science!for all!the!forensic!sciences!and!attempt!to!disprove!the!theories,!

but!the!problem at!hand is!that!forensic!science!is!a!practical!science!based!on!experience!and!

research. One!of!the!primary!issues!is!there!is!little!to!no!repeatability!in!the!comparative!

forensic!sciences!(footwear!and!tire,!fingerprints,!firearms,!trace,!etc.).!This lack!of!repeatability!

prevents!the!application!of!statistics!to!the analysis!and!also!prevents!the!ability!of!quantifying!

results!and!removing!subjectivity.

Much!of!the!research would!be!best!directed in!advancing!the!technology!used!in!the!analysis!

and!collection!of!the!evidence.!Standards!need!to!be!developed!for!3D!scanning!technology!

which!may be!utilized!in!many!of!the!forensic!science!disciplines!in!the!future.

3.##Representation#in#the#Guidance#Groups:##Given#the#diverse,#multiHsector#set#of#stakeholders#

in#forensic#science,#representation#in#Guidance#Groups#must#be#carefully#balanced#and#

inclusive.#

• Who#are#the#stakeholders#who#should#be#represented#on#the#guidance#groups?##What#steps#

can#NIST#take#to#ensure#appropriately#broad#representation#within#the#Guidance#Groups?#

What#does#balanced#representation#mean#and#how#can#it#be#achieved?

In!SWGTREAD,!we’ve!gone!to!great!lengths!to!solicit!board!members!for!their!geographic!

representation,!cross!discipline!representation,!researcher!representation in!addition!to!their!

training!and!experience!in!footwear!and!tire!tread!evidence.!Members!need!to!be!chosen!to!

participate,!not!simply!be!willing!to!volunteer.!Top!examiners!need!to!be!asked!to!participate

and!motivated!to!want!to!participate.

There!also!needs!to!be!support!from!the!participant’s!agencies!to!participate.!The!GGs!need!to!

have!active!lines!of!communication!between!themselves!and!the!major!professional!

organizations!(e.g.,!IAI,!AAFS,!etc.).! There!may!not!be a!particular!need to!have!representatives!

as sitting!members!on!the!GG!since!this!could become!an!issue!in!reducing GG!productivity.

There!could!perhaps!b!a!“Stakeholder!Guidance!Group”!made!up!of!members!of!the!various!

forensic!associations,!lawyers,!judges,!researchers,!and!statisticians!that!could!be!used!as!a!

resource!for!the!GG’s!and!provide!the!GG’s!with!input!on!standards.

• What#is#the#best#way#to#engage#organizations#playing#a#role#in#forensic#science,#standards#

development#and#practice?

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 180 of 337
Response from Matt Johnson of SWGTREAD 

Page!7 of!8

Reputation.!Many!of!the!current!SWGs!enjoy!a!close!working!relationship!with!forensic!

organizations!and!large!agency laboratories.!Large!agencies!are!acutely!aware!of!the!need!for!

their!procedures!to!be!generally!accepted!by!the!relevant!scientific communities!and!the!SWG!

standards!and!guidelines!have!provided!this!service!for!many!years!now.!It!is!the!reputation!of!

quality!that!fulfills!the!need!and!compels!organizations!to!want!to!play!a!role!and!participate.!!

It’s!also!the!reputation!that!compels smaller!organizations!and!agencies!to!want!to!participate!

even!when!faced!with!standards!that!require!more!budgeted!funds!and!staffing.

• How#should#interested#parties#who#may#not#be#direct#participants#in#Guidance#Groups,#engage#

in#a#meaningful#way#to#have#an#impact#on#issues#in#front#of#the#guidance#groups?

Open!comment!periods!for!draft!standards need!to!have!widelyGdistributed!notifications!along!

with!direct!notifications!to!examiners!working!in!the!discipline. The!SWGTREAD!Forum,!for!

example,!makes!announcements directly!to!footwear!and!tire!track!examiners!and!ask!that!they!

share!the!announcements!with!any!other!examiners!they!know!who!may!not!be!participating!in!

the!forum.!NIST!should!create!a!communication!network!with!all!forensic!examiners!to!promote!

the!GGs!and!to!engage!participation!on!a!large!scale.

• To#what#extent#and#in#what#ways#must#the#Federal#government,#as#well#as#state,#local,#tribal,#

and#territorial,#governments#be#involved#at#the#outset?#

Advertise.!Get!the!word!out!so!they’re!advised!of!planning!and!goals!during!development!so!

there’s!an!air!of!anticipation!about!what’s!being!created.!Get!them!thinking!they!want!to!be!

involved!and they!want!their!examiners!participating!at!all!levels.

4.##Scope#of#the#Guidance#Groups

• Should#all#the#current#forensic#Scientific#Working#Groups#(SWGs)#transition#to#Guidance#

Groups?

Yes,!the!best!way!for!the!Guidance!Groups!to!get!started!is!with!an!experienced!group!that!has!

significant!experience!with!standard!development.

• Are#there#broader#groupings#of#forensic#science#disciplines#that#could#form#the#basis#of#

Guidance#Groups#than#the#current#group#of#twentyHone#SWGs?##If#so,#what#are#those#

groupings?

A!Crime!Scene!Investigation!(CSI)!group!needs!to!be!formed!and!added. The!proper!collection!

and documentation!of!evidence!from!crime!scenes!is!vital!to!the!examination!of!that!evidence!

and!the!subsequent!presentations!in!court.!Having!a!CSI!GG!would!facilitate!overlapping!

discipline!communication.

Some!of!the!disciplines!have!very!similar!aspects!to!their!respective!functions!as!a!discipline;!

however,!standards!for!each!specific!discipline!reflect!the!finer!differences!and!need!to!be!

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 181 of 337
Response from Matt Johnson of SWGTREAD 

Page!8 of!8

written!separately.!Groupings!of!certain!disciplines!could!have!some!mutual!advantages!where!

certain!specific!aspects overlap. Some!meetings!could!be!planned!with!“general”!topics!to!be!

discussed!and!then!have!specific!discipline!breakout!sessions.!It!is!still!going!to!be!very!

important!for!the!specific!disciplines!to!create!standards!independently.!The!groupings!might!

have!some!administrative!advantages;!however,!the!disciplines!are!different!and!have!different!

problems!to!address.!

• Is#there#a#need#for#a#crossHdisciplinary#functional#approach#(i.e.#statistical#analysis)#and#how#

could#the#Guidance#Groups#be#structured#to#best#address#that#need?#

There!can and!should be a!crossGdisciplinary!functional!approach in!some!carefully!chosen

aspects.!However,!the!need!for disciplineGspecific examiners!is!crucial!to!development!of!

standards.!For!instance,!there!would!be!certain!procedures!in!footwear/tire!track,!trace!

evidence,!fingerprint!comparisons,!and!firearms!that!would!have!aspects!of!the!comparisons!

with!similar!procedural!steps.!However,!specific!details!in!the!comparisons!are!significantly!

different!and!require!specific!verbiage!in!a!written!standard.

• To#what#extent#do#Guidance#Groups#need#to#support#different#forensic#science#disciplines#

differently#from#one#another?

The!GGs!will!need!the!ability!to!draw!upon!the!expertise!of!different!disciplines!for!specific!

purposes!in!standard!development.!Having!special!guests!invited!to!meetings!to!participate!in!

discussions!is!vital!to!the!standard!development!process.!This!tool!has!been!very!successful!for!

SWGTREAD!in!the!past. The!ability!for!one!GG!to!draw!upon!the!expertise!of!another!GG!will!be!

invaluable.

The!GGs!will!need!the!assistance!of!NIST!and!other!GGs to!promote!issues!that!affect!each!

discipline.!For!instance,!footwear!and!tire!track!evidence!is!greatly!underutilized!in!this!country.!

It’s!the!third!most!common!evidence!found!at!crime!scenes!(behind!fingerprints!and!DNA).!The!

problem!is!partially!due!to!a!general!lack!of!understanding!of!how!valuable!it!can!be!in!

investigations!and!trials.!It’s!also!underutilized!for!administrative!budget!issues!in!many!

jurisdictions.!An!effort,!on!a!national!level,!to!raise!awareness!of!this!valuable!resource!would!go!

a!long!way!in!solving!this!problem.!Most!of!the!other!disciplines!have!issues!that!would!benefit!

from!a!national!awareness!campaign.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 182 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 183 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 184 of 337
Response from Doug Jones 

Hello Susan,

I am a Breath Alcohol Computer (BAC) Technician Trooper from Washington State. I 

received notice about guidance groups being formed by NIST from the International 

Association of Chemical Testing. I hope they include Breath Test Programs around the 

country in their list of groups/disciplines. Breath Testing is the most widely used method in 

obtaining evidence of impaired drivers around the country. Washington State is one of the 

only states that I am aware of currently providing measurement uncertainty results in all 

breath test cases. The Impaired Driving Section of the Washington State Patrol falls under 

the Forensic Laboratory Services Bureau of the WSP.

I believe there exists a sufficient scientific basis for breath test programs around the 

country to be included in these forensic groups, through the means of chemical testing. 

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards

Trooper Doug Jones 

Impaired Driving Section, Seattle WA

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 185 of 337
Response from George Kiebuzinski of Noblis 

Noblis Response to the RFI re: Structure of the Guidance 

Groups 

Overview:

We believe that many of the current Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) perform excellent work 

and address the needs of their forensic disciplines. However, we believe that performance could 

be improved significantly for all of the SWGs. The Guidance Groups (GG) should not only 

reflect the needs of the practitioners, they must provide the means for improving the forensic 

discipline and address issues and critiques of the forensic science as exemplified by the National 

Academy of Sciences Report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path 

Forward. This can be done by providing the following capabilities within the overall GG 

framework: 

• Membership. Ideally the GG should be composed of both practitioners and researchers

to ensure that the practices are updated to reflect the underlying understanding of the

discipline as well as changes in technology. Membership selection and renewal should be

subject to approval of both the GG and a NIST Credentials Committee that would

determine membership needs and qualifications. As a first step in organizing the GGs, the

Credentials Committee will need to determine the GG membership qualifications and

mix of skills.

• Technical and legal guidance. NIST should charter two new Guidance Groups to

provide guidance relating to the legal underpinnings of forensic science and the scientific

evaluation necessary to validate the disciplines. These groups, herein called the Legal

Advisory Guidance Group (LAGG) and the Technical Advisory Guidance Group

(TAGG) would address legal admissibility issues and other challenges to the disciplines,

and provide guidance on statistical analysis, validation, and testing methodologies. The

two groups would advise all other GGs, to provide greater rigor and uniformity and serve

as a means of raising the overall level of performance and effectiveness of forensic

sciences.

• Standardization. NIST should ensure that there are clearly defined goals for the GGs

which should be developed in coordination with the NIST Executive Committee, the

LAGG and TAGG support groups. The goals should be developed to address the specific

needs of each forensic science. NIST must standardize and define deliverables for the

GGs. This should be done as a joint effort between the forensic science GGs and the

LAGG and TAGG. All forensic science GG reports should adhere to standard

terminology and use uniform evaluation and validation processes. The development of

these goals should be closely coordinated with members of all GGs.

Questions (RFI text is in Italics): 

• Given the scope and principles of the Guidance Groups outlined here, what are

structural models that could best support the Guidance Groups, taking into account the

technical, policy, legal, and operational aspects of forensic science?

NIST should develop a GG framework that would include the following elements:

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 186 of 337
Response from George Kiebuzinski of Noblis 

o The NIST Executive Committee should provide overall guidance and conduct

periodic reviews of the GG organizations and their interactions.

o The LAGG and TAGG in cooperation with forensic science GGs will provide

evaluation and validation of all proposed work and define standards, testing and

validation methodologies, review processes, and approvals for all GG

deliverables. GGs for each of the forensic sciences should be organized to roughly

corresponding to current SWGs. However GG membership and mission

statements and work plan review should be subject to approval by the NIST

Executive Committee.

• What elements or models would facilitate the sharing of best practices and uniform

practices across the Guidance Groups?

o The proposed LAGG and TAGG would be key elements of the framework to

ensure sharing and standardization of best practices.

• Are there public policies or private sector initiatives in other countries that have

successfully strengthened the nation's use of forensic science by supporting the

development and propagation of forensic science consensus documentary standards,

identifying needs of forensic science research and measurement standards, and verifying

the scientific basis exists for each discipline? If so, what are they?

We believe that the highly diverse organizations in the US will require the development

of a unique solution. There are models such as European Network of Foreign Sciences

Institutes which may be applicable in part to US needs.

• What are the elements which make existing forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs)

successful? Are there examples of best practices in specific SWGs that ought to be

replicated in Guidance Groups? If so, what are they?

Two of the most successful SWGs are FISWG and SWGFAST. We believe that they

have the right mix of technical and practitioner staff. They have clearly defined

objectives and have been successful in developing standards and guidelines that have

been used effectively in their disciplines.

• Would partnership with a standards development organization (SDO) in which the

standard is issued by the SDO present any obstacle for participation by a broad range of

forensics science stakeholders in the development of a standard? If so, why?

We are not aware of any obstacles. A possible obstacle may be a requirement for paying

fees to the SDO as precondition to participation.

• Would partnership with an SDO in which the standard is issued by the SDO present any

obstacle to broad adoption of a standard? If so, why?

A potential issue is that of SDO fees. For instance, annual dues in OASIS are $8,000.

Some Federal Agencies, that have a vested interested in standards being developed by

OASIS, have refrained from joining because of the high annual dues. We also do not

believe that academia or individuals in the forensic community would be willing to spend

the money to develop a standard, especially if multiple SDOs are required for specific

projects.

• Would a fee-based membership model run through a not-for-profit organization (similar

to the National Conference of Weights and Measures) present a significant obstacle for

participation?!!

We do not recommend a fee-based membership model. From our experience with

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 187 of 337
Response from George Kiebuzinski of Noblis 

INCITS, many organizations balk at the membership dues (~$2,000). It should be pointed 

out that just “showing up” costs are an order of magnitude more. Active participation is 

yet another high cost factor. Additionally, privatized models tend to have different tiers 

of membership, e.g., Executive Board vs. Technical Committee, each with a different fee 

structure. Participation in the GGs should be as broad as practical and should be driven 

by the needs of the forensic community. 

• If the Guidance Groups followed a fee-based membership model, are there

appropriately-tiered systems for fees that would prevent “pricing out” organizations,

including individuals?

While fees are an initial step at discouraging membership, attendance and active

participation account for the lion’s share of the cost. Participation by practitioners will

need to address these costs.

• Other than a privatized model, are there other means to maintain a governance or

coordinating body in the long term? If possible, please give examples of existing

structures and their positive and negative attributes.

Federal and State sponsorship will be required for active participation by both the

practitioners and the analytic support personnel.

2. Impact of Guidance Groups (RFI text is in Italics):

In its role in administering and supporting the Guidance Groups, NIST's aim is to improve 

discipline practices by advancing forensic science standards and techniques through a 

collaborative consensus building process with Federal, state and local community partners. 

NIST thus seeks comments about the ways in which the structure, function and operation would 

best support the Guidance Groups by being a catalyst for such improvements. 

• Given that the Guidance Groups cannot mandate the adoption of standards, what can

they do to best leverage their position and encourage adoption? To what extent does

membership and transparency impact possible adoption of guidance at the state and

local level?

We believe that GG products that are initiated in response to pressing national issues,

with the active participation by the operations personnel, developed with the support of

the recommended LAGG and TAGG will be more readily accepted by the forensic

community. The standard methods of publicizing the developments such as welldesigned and maintained web sites, presentations at appropriate conferences, and most

importantly, reaching out to the community to help them include the product

requirements in their solicitations are very likely to be successful. However, this does

imply that an active outreach program is developed and practiced by the GGs.

• Are there best practices or models to consider with regard to a structure that would

encourage effective communication with the scientific community to explore research

gaps and aid in recognizing research priorities?

It is very important to include the right membership in all of the GGs. Membership will

need to include leading practitioners, academic leaders, researchers, and legal staff. Its

membership selection should be based on individual qualification.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 188 of 337
Response from George Kiebuzinski of Noblis 

• What is the best way to engage organizations playing a role in forensic science,

standards development and practice?

NIST should canvas representative organizations for lists of active and qualified

practitioners who are interested in advancing the Forensic Sciences. These should include

academia, researchers in private practice, Federal Agencies, as well as large State and

local organizations. This list should be periodically updated by the GGs and shared across

all GGs.

• How should interested parties who may not be direct participants in Guidance Groups,

engage in a meaningful way to have an impact on issues in front of the Guidance

Groups?

It is envisioned that when the NIST GG Executive Committee defines new issues or

requires updates to existing policies and procedures, methodologies, or other

deliverables, they will be publicized via announcements sent to lists of qualified

personnel (maintained by the NIST GG Executive Committee) requesting their

participation. It is also proposed that the LAGG and TAGG provide a leadership role in

defining issues and proposing courses of action across all of the forensic sciences

represented by the GGs.

• To what extent and in what ways must the Federal government, as well as state, local,

tribal and territorial governments be involved at the outset?

Without adequate funding by the Federal Government, the success of the GGs will be

highly limited.

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups (RFI text is in Italics)

• Should all of the current forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) transition to

Guidance Groups?

Yes, subject to their membership being reviewed for proper balance between practitioners

and researchers, and standardization of their organizational charters to conform to the

NIST developed requirements.

• Are there broader groupings of forensic science disciplines that could form the basis of

Guidance Groups than the current group of twenty-one SWGs? If so, what are those

groupings?

We are not familiar with all of the SWGs and cannot offer advice on this matter.

• Is there a need for a cross-disciplinary functional approach (i.e. statistical analysis) and

how could the Guidance Groups be structured to best address that need?

Absolutely. This is why we recommend the new LAGG and TAGG groups.

• To what extent do Guidance Groups need to support different forensic science disciplines

differently from one another?

While all forensic sciences are somewhat unique, we believe that there are common areas

that should be addressed in a uniform manner. These include:

o Terminology

o Testing and analysis methodology

o Reporting

o Publishing requirements

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 189 of 337
2013-2014 AFQAM BOARD

President Christopher Krug 

President-Elect Jason Bond

Secretary Lise Swacha

Treasurer Steve Henning

Past President Melanie McMillin

November 12, 2013 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

c/o Susan Ballou 

100 Bureau Drive 

Mailstop 8102 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

RE: Notice of Inquiry on Possible models for the Administration and Support of Discipline-Specific 

Guidance Groups for Forensic Science 

To Whom It May Concern, 

The Association of Forensic Quality Assurance Managers (AFQAM) is a national organization that 

promotes standardized practices and professionalism in quality assurance management for the forensic 

science community. Our organization is composed of approximately 250 members from all levels of 

government (federal, state and local) as well as accrediting bodies and private laboratories who are 

actively involved in furthering forensic quality assurance in their organization. 

On behalf of our membership, we submit the following response to the notice in the Federal Registry 

regarding the perspectives on the appropriate model for NIST administration and support of disciplinespecific Guidance Groups. 

1. Structure of the Guidance Groups:

x The Guidance Groups should be comprised of a majority (at least 75%) of current, proficiency

tested practitioners in the discipline represented by the working group. This helps ensure that any 

guidance is evaluated from the bench level perspective to ensure that it can be implemented 

feasibly.

x The remaining representation should come from other forensic science stakeholders - Laboratory 

Directors, Quality Assurance Managers, Attorneys, Researchers, etc. 

x The Guidance Groups membership should be representatives from federal, state, and local 

practitioners from all parts of the country. Such representation promotes a thorough evaluation of 

guidance from all sizes and organizational structures of labs and lab systems. Representation 

from the different levels should be commensurate with the actual quantity of evidence analyzed at 

each of those levels. State and local laboratories work the vast majority of all evidence analyzed 

in the U.S. and consequently have the vast majority of the backlog. Even representation from all 

regions of the country also helps ensure that guidance addresses all issues seen within a discipline 

and does not become overly focused on issues only seen in one region. 

x Practitioner representatives should be from accredited laboratories. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 190 of 337
x Historically, SWGs have operated without much cooperation or coordination. A centralized

governance that offers a coordinated and cohesive structure and organization for the many 

guidance groups has the potential to offer huge benefits. 

2. Impact of Guidance Groups:

x Guidance Groups should develop a close relationship with the accrediting bodies such as

ASCLD-LAB, FQS and A2LA. Accrediting bodies have the benefit of assessing a laboratory’s 

practices on-site. A relationship between the two will allow them to make a more informed 

determination about whether the laboratory’s practices are appropriate based on any accepted or 

recognized guidance documents. 

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups:

x At least one representative of each Guidance Group should be an individual who spends at

minimum 50% of their time performing QA related tasks. The QA Manager can provide 

accreditation support for the disciplines including compliance with international standards and 

supplemental accrediting body requirements. 

x The vast majority of members on any given group should be actively involved in a forensic 

science laboratory. Members from academia, non-profit, and industry may have unique and 

useful perspectives, but their basic motivations and organizational goals can be very different 

from that of a forensic science laboratory. 

x Guidance groups should engage existing national and international forensic science organizations, 

such as AFQAM, IAI, AFTE, AAFS, etc. relevant to the particular discipline to play a role in 

standards development and practice. 

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups:

x There should be a cross-disciplinary approach for the Guidance Groups to issue one guidance

document of common interest (i.e. quality assurance, measurement certainty, etc). For instance, 

SWGs such as SWGGUN, SWGFAST & SWGDRUG have published Quality Assurance 

guidance documents in the past. Multiple guidance documents on the same subject could result in 

conflicting requirements between the different documents. 

x A Quality Assurance Guidance Group should be established. Quality Assurance is the one 

“discipline” of a laboratory that can greatly impact all other disciplines through the policies and 

procedures which apply to an entire laboratory. This QA group would publish consensus 

guidance documents for Quality Assurance topics that affect the whole laboratory, such as 

proficiency testing, courtroom testimony monitoring, administrative and technical reviews, 

corrective and preventative actions, audits, method validation and document control. The other 

Guidance Groups would produce documents specific to that disciple/area of forensic, such as 

technical procedures, report writing, training requirements, and terminology. 

Sincerely, 

Christopher Krug, President 

Association of Forensic Quality Assurance Managers 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 191 of 337
Response from Mike Kusluski 

Representation

There!are!technical!issues!which!need!to!be!addressed!in!the!forensic!science!disciplines.!However,!in!

recent!years,!the!din!raised!by!the!innocence!movement!has!eclipsed!the!scope!of!the!problems.!Even!

though!forensic!science!is!practiced!by!a!wide!variety!of!experts!in!the!private!and!public!sectors,!

(working!for!both!prosecution!and!defense),!the!criticism!has!been!almost!exclusively!directed!toward!

public!laboratories.!This!is!despite!the!number!of!cases!in!which!prosecutors!ignored!the!opinions!of!

their!local!public!expert!and!hired!a!private!expert!more!willing!to!slant!the!evidence.!In!my!opinion,!the!

intention!of!exaggerating!the!number!and!frequency!of!errors!is!simply!to!neutralize!forensic!testimony!

altogether.!

It!makes!sense!that!a!variety!of!stakeholders!should!be!included!in!the!process.!However,!the!role!of!

nonscientists!should!be!extremely!limited.!As!with!other!fields,!the!administering!bodies!of!forensic!

science!disciplines!should!be!comprised!primarily!of!forensic!scientists.!Attorneys!and!legal!scholars!are!

generally!not!shy,!and!have!other!avenues!to!address!their!grievances.!ConsultantsFforFhire!also!have!

little!difficulty!making!themselves!heard!either.!But!forensic!scientists!in!public!laboratories!are!

generally!prevented!from!discussing!the!details!of!their!cases!with!the!media.!Since!the!policies!

generated!by!these!guidance!groups!will!apply!only!to!laboratories!accepting!federal!support!(read!

"public!crime!labs"),!it!is!not!unreasonable!that!they!should!be!strongly!represented.

I!was!pleased!to!find!out!that!NIST!would!be!overseeing!the!National!Commission!on!Forensic!Science.!

My!concern!is!that!the!new!guidance!groups!will!end!up!being!controlled!by!individuals!who!are!

interested!in!selfFpromotion,!undermining!the!forensic!disciplines!and/or!would!not!know!which!end!of!

a!screwdriver!to!pick!up.!

Enforcement

If!the!guidance!groups!are!actually!comprised!of!forensic!scientists,!then!I!believe!that!they!should!also!

take!a!very!active!role!in!the!review!and!investigation!of!laboratory errors/potential!errors!(similar!to!a!

medical!review!board).!To!date,!the!response!by!local!laboratories/authorities!has!been!inconsistent,!

sensationalized!and!driven!by!local!politics!F!resulting!in!a!loss!of!public!trust.!

Accreditation

Over!the!last!three!decades,!ASCLD/LAB!made!great!strides!in!convincing!laboratories!of!the!benefits!of!

external!accreditation.!But!overall,!the!quality!of!assessment!by!their!auditors!and!the!oversight!

provided!by!their!board!was!poor.!The!board!has!outlived!its!usefulness.!It!is!time!for!the!parent!

organization!(ASCLD)!to!hand!off!control!to!the!ISO!organization.!This!would!address!the!need!for!an!

outside!accrediting!body!to!provide!objective!assessment!of!laboratories!(i.e.,!the!guidance!groups!

(made!up!of!forensic!professionals)!would!provide!detailed!policies!and!practices,!while!ISO!

(representing!outside!stakeholders)!would!ensure!that!those!policies!are!followed).

Certification

If!the!guidance!groups!are!actually!comprised!of!forensic!scientists,!then!I!believe!that!they!should!

expand!their!role!to!also!define!and!promote!requirements!for!the!mandatory!certification!of!all!forensic!

scientists!in!their!respective!disciplines.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 192 of 337
Response from Mike Kusluski 

Terminology

Overall,!I!think!the!SWGs!have!advanced!the!quality!of!work!in!their!disciplines.!One!area!that!seems!to!

be!lacking!however!is!terminology.!The!standardized!terminology!in!the!individual!SWGs!is!acceptable,!

but!still!needs!more!work.!The!guidance!groups!need!to!take!this!to!the!next!level,!and!promote!

consistency!across!all!disciplines.!This!is!not!a!trivial!issue.!Forensic!scientists!make!their!living!by!

describing!scientific!analysis!in!layman’s!terms.

Respectfully,

Mike!Kusluski

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 193 of 337
Susan Ballou 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

100 Bureau Drive – Mailstop 8102 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Ms. Ballou: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the model for National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) administration and support of discipline-specific “Guidance Groups” for the forensic 

sciences. Having served on four Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) over the past 15 years – three in 

leadership roles – I hope my comments are useful. 

I will begin by discussing the choice of the name – “Guidance Groups”. A lot of thought has gone into 

rebranding SWGs, but I am concerned with the new label. Over my 25 years of working in the field of 

forensic science – primarily in drug chemistry and forensic toxicology – I have come to realize that 

“guidance” within the forensic sciences has a meaning analogous to “good ideas”. But that is not 

necessarily synonymous with “standards of practice”. In fact, the most productive SWG that I have 

personally been involved with has been SWGTOX whose Executive Committee recognized that the SWG 

must write documents as minimum expectations as opposed to recommendations. Setting this as the 

mission of the group changed the mindset of the process where great thought has been put into 

whether something “must” be done as opposed to “should” be done. Our clinical laboratory colleagues 

have recognized this as well. So there may be a need to reconsider the use of the term “Guidance 

Groups”; particularly if the intent is for the groups to develop specific requirements that must be met. If 

the use of the term “Scientific Working Group” is no longer desired, perhaps they could be branded as 

“Standards Groups” or “Expert Groups”. 

And while it is recognized that these groups cannot mandate the adoption of their own documents, if 

their products are written as standards of practice (“must” or “shall” and not “should”), accrediting 

bodies can be encouraged to adopt these standards into their programs and accredit laboratories 

against them. This, coupled with what many hope and expect to be mandatory accreditation 

throughout the US, will help ensure that the standards developed by the groups become required 

practices. Of course, voluntary adoption by laboratories is also possible, but not as effective. 

It is difficult to say if all of the current forensic SWGs should transition into these new groups. It seems 

that transitioning all may diminish the need to rebrand them with a different name. 

Broader groupings of the disciplines may have merit, but it is more likely to cause failure. In 2007, the 

FBI recognized overlap in a number of documents being developed within three SWGs associated with 

forensic analysis of evidence related to terrorist events – SWG for the Forensic Analysis of Chemical 

Terrorism (SWGFACT), SWG on Microbial Genetics and Forensics (SWGMGF), and SWG for the Forensic 

Analysis of Radiological Materials (SWGFARM). The decision was made to combine these into a single 

group – the Scientific Working Group for the Forensic Analysis of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and 

Nuclear Evidence (SWGCBRN). Within just two meetings of SWGCBRN, the leadership realized that 

Response from Mark LeBeau

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 194 of 337
members within their respective disciplines became disengaged when other disciplines were discussed 

or documents from other disciplines were under review. For example, the biologists from SWGMGF had 

no interest in the document being discussed about quality control produced by the SWGFARM group. 

Likewise, while SWGMAT encompasses numerous trace evidence disciplines, it is my understanding that 

it struggles with similar issues. So these experiences lead me to believe that broader groupings may not 

be successful. 

In regard to partnering with a standards development organization (SDO), it may not be necessary. The 

experiences of some of the SWGs that have worked closely with an SDO suggest there are challenges 

that actually interfere with the process. One example is that the SDO may significantly change the 

standard put forth by the group. Another is that many require separate membership in the organization 

to vote on a document within the SDO. Instead, I believe it is better to require the groups to follow a 

SDO model without actually requiring that there be a partnership with a specific SDO. 

I am not a member of the National Conference for Weights and Measures; however I question the value 

of using such an approach. On the one hand, if the fees are small, there would be the need to ensure 

that the cost of physically collecting and maintaining the fees are truly worth the effort. Conversely, if 

fees are high, you risk losing the participation of state and local partners in this process. So, without 

more information, I think this is not a good approach for the groups. 

In my experience, membership selection is vital to success in these groups. Individuals selected to serve 

on each group must have the appropriate experience and attitude about the process. The membership 

must be heavily weighted towards experts in the given forensic disciplines being represented by a 

group. But the expertise of the groups must be supplemented by attorneys, academicians, and 

statisticians that can offer unique perspectives. But this must be done carefully. Overloading with 

additional experts can be disruptive to the cooperation and progress of the groups and cause contempt 

by the ultimate “users” of the groups’ products. 

 Even more important in gaining respect from the community is that all documents must be 

transparently developed with ample opportunity for public comment by those that are not members of 

the group. If the users of the standards are offered the opportunity to comment and those comments 

are truly reviewed and considered in the development of the documents, there is a better chance of 

acceptance of the final products. 

To help facilitate sharing of best and uniform practices across the groups, it is vital that there be an 

office that oversees and manages all of the groups. This has been discussed and I understand is likely to 

occur, so I want to voice my support of the idea. But it is also important that such an office be 

appropriately funded to support the mission of the groups. One of the biggest challenges that we have 

faced with SWGs – particularly in the most recent years – has been the lack of support for meetings 

(online and offline), lack of administrative assistance, and failure to strategically plan for the future of 

these groups. Such an office should be tasked to oversee all of these functions for the groups. 

As far as a need for cross-discipline functional approaches, it is definitely important for some subjects. 

The example of statistical analysis is on target, but the topic requires a thorough understanding of the 

Response from Mark LeBeau

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 195 of 337
forensic analysis before the best statistical approach can truly be recommended. I have done a 

considerable amount of work with the American Statistical Association within the last year and my initial 

approach was to have their statisticians help us develop recommendations on how to better educate 

our scientists on statistics. Walking into the project, there were a lot of assumptions that were quickly 

revised after a couple meetings such that the first efforts of the partnership changed to educating the 

statisticians on forensic science so that they could make better recommendations concerning the 

examinations. To make this work for the groups, I can envision that once they are formed and working 

well, statisticians and select personnel from each guidance group could have separate meetings to 

address these cross-discipline needs. 

In closing, thank you again for the opportunity to comment on these matters. Should you need 

clarification on any of my opinions and experiences with the SWGs, I am very happy to share those with 

you.

Sincerely, 

Marc A. LeBeau, PhD, D-ABFT 

Senior Forensic Scientist 

FBI Laboratory 

Response from Mark LeBeau

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 196 of 337
Response from John Lentini 

I agree with Peter Tytell's comments. 

John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC

Scientific Fire Analysis, LLC

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 197 of 337
7881114th Avenue North

Largo, FL 33773

(727) 549Ǧ6067

www.nfstc.org

October 10, 2013

Susan Ballou, Program Manager

Law Enforcement Standards Office (OLES)

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Gaithersburg, MD20899

Dear Ms. Ballou;

In response to the Notice of Inquiry published September 27, 2013 in the Federal Register regarding models for disciplineͲ

specific Guidance Groups for forensic science, we at the National Forensic Science Technology Center (NFSTC) submit

input for your consideration.

NFSTC may operate outside the laboratory environment, but with 18 years of forensic industry experience with

laboratories around the country and internationally, it is NFSTC’s view that forensic science is a business, just like any

other. We have experience in almost all forensic disciplines and they are more alike than they are different from an

industry perspective, and that is where effort should be focused.

The idea of developing a new guidance structure is not necessarily the wrong approach, but it must be done with specific

goals in mind. Also, it begs the question—why not build on the structures that currently exist? The current SWG groups

may be the basis of the next generation of forensic science industry guidance. Regardless of the starting point, the

approach will not be successful unless it takes into consideration the following:

x The overall mission: each group should have a clear requirement or goal – what problem is it trying to solve?

x Each discipline group should address industry needs consistently, including a focus on research, protocols for

practice, minimum standards for the practitioner and quality assurance.

x Consideration should be given to adding groups specific to laboratory management and quality assurance, which are

very different from discipline practice but affect all aspects of forensic science.

x The agency funding the groups should provide support that is consistent, including process guidelines, reporting

requirements, branding and website support, membership vetting guidelines and opportunities to meet.

Benchmarking from a system like the Food and Drug administration might be valuable.

Before any of this commences, it should be the goal of the new Forensic Commission to look at the current system,

identify what is working and determine the mission and requirements for the groups. The Commission should focus on

achievable goals and how to secure the best Return on Investment (ROI) for the government.

Forensic science is, or should be by now, a mature industry. To best support this industry, it is important that we commit,

fund and move forward with a structure that is formalized and consistent for the benefit of our legal system and our

communities.

Respectfully,

Kevin Lothridge

Chief Executive Officer

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 198 of 337
American)Academy)of)Forensic)Sciences

American)Society)of)Crime)Laboratory)Directors

American)Society)of)Crime)Laboratory)Directors,)

Laboratory)Accreditation)Board

International)Association)for)Identification)Society)of)

Forensic)Toxicologists/)

American)Board)of)Forensic)Toxicology

National)Association)of)Medical)Examiners

International)Association)of)Forensic)Nurses

November!12,!2013!

National!Institute!of!Standards!and!Technology

c/o!Susan!Ballou

100!Bureau!Drive

Mailstop!8102

Gaithersburg,!MD!!20899

We are writing to you regarding the Federal Register published on Friday September 26th, 2013 

regarding possible Models for the Administration and Support of Discipline-Specific Guidance 

Groups for Forensic Science in order to provide the consensus position of our Membership. The 

Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations was founded in 2000 and represents over 12,000 

forensic science practitioners. The membership of the CFSO includes the American Academy of 

Forensic Sciences, the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, the Society of Forensic 

Toxicologists, the National Association of Medical Examiners, and the International Association 

for Identification, the American Board of Forensic Toxicology and the American Society of 

Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board. Many individuals of our 

organizations have submitted statements providing their specific comments in response to your 

request and some have included comments on the Powerpoint that has been presented by NIST at 

a variety of organization meetings. Some member organizations have chosen not to submit an 

individual document. As our bylaws represent, the CFSO represents the consensus positions of 

the organizations as a whole. Therefore, we have reviewed the submitted documents of our 

member organizations and the various comments that have been provided to us by individual 

members and are providing you a general position of the forensic science practitioner community 

at large. They are as follows: 

1) Structure of Guidance Groups:

a. The CFSO organizations are supportive of the existing SWGs but have long called

for a more structured approach to them to include consistent funding. The inequality of 

support and funding of the various SWGs has limited the effectiveness of some SWGs in 

comparison to other SWGs which have been fully organized and supported such as 

SWGDAM. 

b. It is not clear how the Guidance Groups would report to the National Commission

on Forensic Sciences or to the Department of Justice. We note that the previously 

proposed legislation proposed by Senator Leahy has the discipline specific committees 

reporting to the Deputy Attorney General through an Office of Forensic Sciences for 

review and implementation. It would be useful for the Guidance Groups to feed into a 

system that permits some level of enforcement. The Leahy proposal also provides for 

great deference be given to the committees, so that their recommendations are not 

modified by stakeholders or policymakers without strong justification. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 199 of 337
American)Academy)of)Forensic)Sciences

American)Society)of)Crime)Laboratory)Directors

American)Society)of)Crime)Laboratory)Directors,)

Laboratory)Accreditation)Board

International)Association)for)Identification)Society)of)

Forensic)Toxicologists/)

American)Board)of)Forensic)Toxicology

National)Association)of)Medical)Examiners

International)Association)of)Forensic)Nurses

2) Impact of Guidance Groups:

a. There is some concern that the Guidance Groups could put forward

recommendations that would result in unfunded mandates. Having said that, the

CFSO organizations are supportive of mandating accreditation and certification

and believe that work with a legislative body could result in a positive outcome

favorable to the forensic practitioner community.

b. Regarding research agendas, the forensic community believes that research should

not only stem from needs and requirements of the forensic practitioners but also

allow for ingenuity and advancement in the science from the public and private

sector to include universities. The Leahy proposal addresses this through a

mandated needs assessment coordinated by an Office Forensic Sciences.

3) Representation in the Guidance Groups:

a. All of the CFSO organizations have strong concerns about the definition of a

“balanced and inclusive” representation. By definition, the SWGs’ or Guidance

Groups’ mission to “support the development and propagation of forensic science

consensus documentary standards, monitor research and measurement standards

gaps in each forensic discipline and verify that a sufficient scientific basis exists

for each discipline”, means that the membership must be predominated by

“practitioners” and not by interested stakeholders. This position is supported by all

the members of our organizations who believe that there could be non-voting

participants or observers who participate in these groups, but voting members

MUST have active, practitioner experience so as to ensure that decisions made are

operationally sound and based in the application of the science.

b. It would be useful to have formal representation from relevant professional

forensic science organizations, where appropriate.

4) Scope of the Guidance Groups:

a. The CFSO organizations generally believe that the current structure of the SWGs

being based on individual disciplines is a necessary structure, although there

should be room for cross disciplinary discussion.

Sincerely, 

Peter Marone 

Chair, 

Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 200 of 337
Response from Ken Marr 

1!

Updated:!October!31,!2013

Comments!re:!NIST! request!on!Guidance!Groups,!due!Nov!2013.

Request'for'Comment:'This'Notice'of'Inquiry'seeks'comment'on'the'possible'models'

for'the'administration,'structure'and'support'of'the'Guidance'Groups.''Responses'

can'include'information'detailing'the'effective'and'ineffective'aspects'of'

prospective'models,'as'well'as'the'current'forensic'Scientific'Working'Groups'

(SWGs).''The'questions'below'are'intended'to'assist'in'framing'the'issues'and'

should'not'be'construed'as'a'limitation'on'comments'that'parties'may'submit.''

NIST'invites'comment'on'the'full'range'of'issues'that'may'be'raised'by'this'

Notice.''Comments'that'contain'references'to'studies,'research'and'other'

empirical'data'that'are'not'widely'published'should'be'accompanied'by'copies'of'

the'referenced'materials'with'the'submitted'comments,'keeping'in'mind'that'all'

submissions'will'be'part'of'the'public'record.

1.''Structure'of'the'Guidance'Groups

*Given'the'scope'and'principles'of'the'Guidance'Groups'outlined'here,'what'are'

structural'models'that'could'best'support'the'Guidance'Groups,'taking'into'

account'the'technical,'policy,'legal,'and'operational'aspects'of'forensic'

science?

Need'to'have'at'least'the'following'specialties'in'each'group:'

I Research'and'Development

I Best'Practices

I Legal'aspects

I Community'outreach

*What'elements'or'models'would'facilitate'the'sharing'of'best'practices'and'

uniform'practices'across'the'Guidance'Groups?

*Are'there'public'policies'or'private'sector'initiatives'in'other'countries'that'

have'successfully'strengthened'the'nation's'use'of'forensic'science'by'supporting'

the'development'and'propagation'of'forensic'science'consensus'documentary'

standards,'identifying'needs'of'forensic'science'research'and'measurement'

standards,'and'verifying'the scientific'basis'exists'for'each'discipline?'If'so,'

what'are'they?

Yes,'it'occurs'when'the'forensic'scientist'is'an'advocate'for'the'court'and'not'

for'the'plaintiff'or'defendant.

*What'are'the'elements'which'make'existing'forensic'Scientific'Working'Groups'

(SWGs)'successful?'

Wide'membership'from'federal,'state,'local,'academic'and'commercial'activities.

Are'there'examples'of'best'practices'in'specific'SWGs'that'ought'to'be'replicated'

in'Guidance'Groups?'If'so,'what'are'they?

Yes,'for'example'SWGDE'and'SWGIT'share'common'training'documents'and'glossary.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 201 of 337
Response from Ken Marr 

2!

*Would'partnership'with'a'standards'development'organization'(SDO)'in'which'the'

standard'is'issued'by'the'SDO'present'any'obstacle'for'participation'by'a'broad'

range'of'forensics'science'stakeholders'in'the'development'of'a'standard?'If'so,'

why?

The'word'‘partnership’'implies'joint'interests'and'common'efforts.'However,'the'

strength'of'a'‘standard’'should'include'subjectivity'and'preferably'full'

independence'from'any'stakeholders,'which'you'would'not'get'with'a'“partnership.”'

The'goal'of'establishing'standards'must'be'part'of'improving'forensic'sciences

and'any appearances'of'conflict'of'interest'should'be'reduced. This'will'not'be'

easy'but'it'is'necessary.

*Would'partnership'with'an'SDO'in'which'the'standard'is'issued'by'the'SDO'present'

any'obstacle'to'broad adoption'of'a'standard?'If'so,'why?

Yes,'there'would'appear'to'be'a'conflict'of'interest.

*Would'a'feeIbased'membership'model'run'through'a'notIforIprofit'organization'

(similar'to'the'National'Conference'of'Weights'and'Measures)'present'a'

significant'obstacle'for'participation?

The'issue'of'funding'has'not'yet'been'addressed'and'is'the'major'impediment'to'

this'entire'effort.'The'idea'of'“Pay'to'Play”'in'this'effort'should'be'avoided.

*If'the'Guidance'Groups'followed'a'feeIbased'membership'model,'are'there'

appropriatelyItiered'systems'for'fees'that'would'prevent'"pricing'out"'

organizations,'including'individuals?

This'is'a'bad'idea.'Get'Congress'to'fund'this'effort'like'it'should.

*Other'than'a'privatized'model,'are'there'other'means'to'maintain a'governance'or'

coordinating'body'in'the'long'term?'If'possible,'please'give'examples'of'existing'

structures'and'their'positive'and'negative'attributes.

The'statement'that'the'guidance'groups'will'not'report'to'DOJ'or'to'NIST'doesn’t'

make'sense'unless'you'establish'a'separate'coordinating'body that'has'teeth'and'

credibility'and'funding.

2.''Impact'of'Guidance'Groups

In'its'role'in'administering'and'supporting'the'Guidance'Groups,'NIST's'aim'is'to'

improve'discipline'practices'by'advancing'forensic'science standards'and'

techniques'through'a'collaborative'consensus'building'process'with'Federal,'state'

and'local'community'partners.''NIST'thus'seeks'comments'about'the'ways'in'which'

the'structure,'function'and'operation'would'best'support'the'Guidance'Groups'by

being'a'catalyst'for'such'improvements.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 202 of 337
Response from Ken Marr 

3!

*Given'that'the'Guidance'Groups'cannot'mandate'the'adoption'of'standards,'what'

can'they'do'to'best'leverage'their'position'and'encourage'adoption?'

A'coordinating'body'has'to'take'control,'push'standards'through'with'consensual'

voting'action, and'doing'that'via'funding'is'the'best'way'to'do'it.

To'what'extent'does'membership'and'transparency'impact'possible'adoption'of'

guidance'at'the'state'and'local'level?

For'forensicIrelated'specialists'who'are'already'involved'with'active'SWGs,'the'

name'‘Guidance'Groups’ is'distracting'at'best.'Why'would'you'disband'the'SWGs?

It'does'not invoke'the'spirit'of'improving'forensic'sciences'for'SWG'members'to'

‘reIinvent’'the'wheel'for'the'benefit'of'some'new'administrative'bureaucracy.'Who'

else'is'competent'or'even'interested'in'doing'this'forensic'research'and'best'

practices'if'they'are'not'already'involved?

*Are'there'best'practices'or'models'to'consider'with'regard'to'a'structure'that'

would'encourage'effective'communication'with'the'scientific'community'to'explore'

research'gaps'and'aid'in'recognizing'research'priorities?

Issues'regarding'Quality'Assurance'need'to'take'a'more'prominent'role.'NOTE:'

SWGDE'has'already'prepared'a'‘model’'QA'manual'and'DE'Best'Practices.

*How'should'NIST'researchers'engage'with'the'Guidance'Groups'in'support'of'the'

goal'to'strengthen'the'nation's'use'of'forensic'science'by'supporting'the'

development'and'propagation'of'forensic'science'consensus'documentary'standards,'

identifying'needs'of'forensic'science'research'and'measurement'standards,'and'

verifying'the'scientific'basis'exists'for'each'discipline?

3.''Representation'in'the'Guidance'Groups'Given'the'diverse,'multiIsector'set'of'

stakeholders'in'forensic'science,'representation'in'Guidance'Groups'must'be'

carefully'balanced'and'inclusive.

*Who'are'the'stakeholders'who'should'be'represented'on'the'Guidance'Groups?'

Need'to'have'federal,'state,'local,'academic'and'industry'represented. Use'SWGI

Speaker'as'a'good'example'of'broad'representation.

What'steps'can'NIST'take'to'ensure'appropriately'broad'representation'within'the'

Guidance'Groups?'What'does'balanced'representation'mean'and'how'can'it'be'

achieved? *What'is'the'best'way'to'engage'organizations'playing'a'role'in'

forensic'science,'standards'development'and'practice?

Whether'it'is'appropriate'or'not,'a'‘voting'model’'organization'is'the'best'way'

to'establish'buyIin'from'a'disparate'group'of'interests.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 203 of 337
Response from Ken Marr 

4!

*How'should'interested'parties'who'may'not'be'direct'participants'in'Guidance'

Groups,'engage'in'a'meaningful'way'to'have'an'impact'on'issues'in'front'of'the'

Guidance'Groups?

*To'what'extent'and'in'what'ways'must'the'Federal'government,'as'well'as'state,'

local,'tribal'and'territorial'governments'be'involved'at'the'outset?

Use'existing'SWG’s'as'models,'in'particular'ones'that'produce'products'and'have'

buyIin'from'their'members,'including'SWGDE,'SWGIT,'FISWG'and'SWGISpeaker.

4.''Scope'of'the'Guidance'Groups

*Should'all'of'the'current'forensic'Scientific'Working'Groups'(SWGs)'transition'

to'Guidance'Groups?

*Are'there'broader'groupings'of'forensic'science'disciplines'that'could'form'the'

basis'of'Guidance'Groups'than'the'current'group'of'twentyIone'SWGs?'If'so,'what'

are'those'groupings?

Need'to'have'a'‘Science'and'the'Law’'group'that'ensures'Daubert'and'other'legal'

criteria'are'applied'in'an'equitable'manner.

*Is'there'a'need'for'a'crossI'disciplinary'functional'approach'(i.e.'statistical'

analysis)'and'how'could'the'Guidance'Groups'be'structured'to'best'address'that'

need?

*To'what'extent'do'Guidance'Groups'need'to'support'different'forensic'science'

disciplines'differently'from'one'another?

Ken!Marr!

FBI

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 204 of 337
Response from Chuck McClelland 

1. Structure of the guidance groups

• What are the elements which make existing forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs)

successful? Are there examples of best practices in specific SWGs that ought to be

replicated in Guidance Groups? If so, what are they?

o They consist of a diverse group of actual practitioners with expertise in the SWG

that they are working in. It is this fact that makes them relevant and the materials

they produce useful to the actual practitioner.

• Would a fee-based membership model run through a not-for-profit organization (similar

to the National Conference of Weights and Measures) present a significant obstacle for

participation?

o There should not be a membership fee required. The goal is to be evenly

represented and with a fee-based model, there will always be some organizations

and/or individuals that can be excluded. Also, with dwindling budgets, labs are

looking to cut costs in any way possible. The quality of the groups shouldn’t be

subject to the whims of local/state/federal budgets.

3. Representation in the guidance groups

• The groups actually writing and producing the policies should be comprised mostly of

actual forensic scientists with expertise in the area. This is not to say that there is not a

place in the groups for individuals from academia, law enforcement or the criminal

justice system. However, if the groups get overrun by individuals not actively involved

in the analysis of evidence, the procedures that the groups produce have a high chance of

being impractical and unusable to the everyday forensic scientist.

• It would be suggested that the groups be comprised of forensic scientists with an advisory

group comprised of other stakeholders. The forensic scientists would be responsible for

drafting the new procedures and then comments, etc. from the other stakeholders. These

other stakeholders could bring issues to the group that they would like to see addressed,

they could give their input, but then the final product needs to be something agreeable to

the forensic scientists in the group. The final say needs to rest with the forensic

scientists.

4. Scope of the guidance groups

• Should all of the current forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) transition to

Guidance Groups?

o Yes, they should transition to guidance groups. Grouping some of the SWGs

together into higher level groups that share expertise (such as SWGMAT

currently does with hairs, fibers, paint, tape and glass) may also be a good idea.

This would allow members from the higher level group who had additional areas

of expertise to provide comments and support the individual SWGs.

Chuck McClelland 

North Carolina State Crime Laboratory 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 205 of 337
Response from Michael Medler 

Ms. Ballou,

In response to the NIST inquiry the following comments are respectfully offered:

• Monies will be necessary to ensure that costs for administering the

Guidance program from forensic laboratory practitioners in order to offset

the time away from the bench from “real” casework to research, study and

collaboration with other group members. Although important, most public

forensic laboratories do not have the resources to provide for committing

forensic scientist to Guidance Groups.

• Current and past SWG efforts should not be ignored and may be the starting

benchmark for additional work or may stand on their own as a developed

standard for immediate use. In other words, let’s be careful “not to throw

the baby out with the bathwater”.

• The Mission of the Guidance group as listed in the Federal Registry is as

follows:

The proposed mission of the Guidance Groups is to support the

development and propagation of forensic science consensus

documentary standards, monitor research and measurement standards

gaps in each forensic discipline, and verify that a sufficient scientific

basis exists for each discipline.

This mission statement seems to me to require that those involved in the

Guidance Groups should come to the table willing to agree to sign on with

all bias “left at the door”. Someone who does not have an open mind or

who can only see it as “we have always done it this way” may not be the

best scientist for the group(s).

• The Guidance Groups should consider “Daubert Rulings” on past cases

where forensic science was used in courts throughout the USA. These

rulings could be useful in outlining the scientific principles demanded of by

the courts.

Sincerely,

Michael Medler, Director

Indianapolis-Marion County Forensic Services Agency

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 206 of 337
From: Terry Melton 

Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:53 PM 

To: Ballou, Susan M 

Subject: Comments on Guidance Groups 

My perspective as the director of a small private DNA laboratory may be somewhat unique, but 

these ideas came to mind in considering the potential directions that Guidance Groups may take: 

1) Guidance Groups should include members from the corporate private sector, who are

major stakeholders in the forensic practice arena and who are highly invested in and

required to conform to promulgated standards often generated from only within the

government community. To balance, keep in mind that a single corporate member is

often overshadowed by a much larger contingent of government participants in most

groups and committees formed in forensic science (this is typical at all regional forensic

meetings, national conferences, and educational forums). Hence, corporate participation

should involve multiple members from the private sector. In the past, SWGs have

excluded corporate participation. An additional advantage of corporate participation is

that cutting edge research often occurs there, not in cash-strapped government

laboratories. The private sector is also very important in that it: 1) serves defense, 2) is a

major reliever of backlogs, and 3) contains some very talented forensic scientists who

have moved there from state and local public forensic agencies.

2) Standards Development Organizations often exclude members from the private sector as

well. Therefore, if Guidance Groups include members from the private sector,

partnerships with SDOs will by extension involve and be influenced by industry

members. A good example of this is that CODIS allows participation by private DNA

labs only through a system that requires annual site visits by an NDIS lab which must

then accept and review DNA data/cases for these labs, although the private labs may be

as qualified as those very state and local NDIS labs by virtue of FBI Annual QAS audits,

ASCLD/LAB accreditation, etc. Although this access system is said to be available (by

the FBI), the private lab is often refused when requesting a desired site visit from an

NDIS lab (no money, no time, conflict of interest, are all reasons our lab has been given

why we cannot get a site visit). If Guidance Groups for DNA include private labs, they

will be able to impact SDOs in a more direct fashion. Qualified private labs should have

access to CODIS training and be allowed full participation in the NDIS system. In

addition, private DNA labs are the only labs that are required to participate in multiple

state-level accreditation and certification programs in order to do their jobs throughout

North America. This is very difficult, and not cost-effective. Involvement in Guidance

Groups (that will have a national voice) can only help this problem.

3) Fee-based systems may result in members who are large contributors having more

influence than smaller members whose organizations are comprised of a few persons or

one person. A large and influential stakeholder such as the FBI could disproportionately

influence the Guidance Group; the FBI already has disproportionate influence by virtue

of its QAS standards and CODIS authority.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 207 of 337
4) Current SWGs should all transition to Guidance Groups to create a uniform structure and

single voice for forensic disciplines.

5) There should be a cross-disciplinary functional approach where appropriate. Guidance

group leaders should determine by surveying their members about what collaborative

opportunities are typical, such as the often fruitful intersection of hair examination and

DNA analysis.

Best to you, 

Terry 

-- 

Terry Melton, PhD, Laboratory Director

Mitotyping Technologies, A Division of American International Biotechnology

2565 Park Center Blvd., Ste.200 State College, PA 16801 USA

T: 814-861-0676 F:814-861-0576

twm107@mitotyping.com www.mitotyping.com

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 208 of 337
November 12, 2013 

Dear Ms. Ballou: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and suggestions for the future of Guidance 

Groups for the forensic sciences. While the Scientific Working Group for Forensic Toxicology 

(SWGTOX) is a relatively young SWG, we feel we have made great strides in our short history. 

SWGTOX has very strong bylaws and a document approval system that is consistent with a 

Standards Development Organization (SDO). Members of SWGTOX’s Executive Committee are 

appointed by the sponsoring organization and by SWGTOX members. 

SWGTOX offers the following comments related to the Guidance Groups: 

Given the scope and principles of the Guidance Groups outlined here, what are structural 

models that could best support the Guidance Groups, taking into account the technical, 

policy, legal, and operational aspects of forensic science? 

SWGTOX has significant concern over the use of the term “Guidance Groups”. The term does 

not suggest the breath, scope, and participants of SWGs. Further, the name suggests that the 

groups are offering “good ideas” and not “standards of practice.” It is suggested that if the name 

must change, then titles such as “Standards Groups” or “Expert Groups” should be adopted. 

In terms of structure, SWGTOX believes that its model is a workable model. However, in respect 

to supportive structure, the concept of a single governing body for all Guidance Groups 

comprised of perhaps two members from each current SWG, along with members-at-large (e.g., 

law enforcement, attorneys, etc.) may be feasible. This governing body should establish common 

standards among all the Guidance Groups. Each discipline would remain autonomous in respect 

to setting discipline-specific standards. 

SWGTOX believes the subject-specific Guidance Groups should serve as independent operating 

bodies that use subject matter experts to promulgate standards of practice for a given forensic 

science discipline. Necessarily, the Guidance Groups would need support in order to function, 

including funding for meetings and other related ventures, administrative support and legal 

support. Structurally, the Guidance Groups would act independently and without influence when 

it comes to standards development. In other words, Guidance Groups should feel unencumbered 

by a sponsoring entity or governing body in respect to accomplishing their tasks. However, such 

independence must be justified and earned via a reporting mechanism to the sponsoring 

organization or governing body to describe actions and accomplishments. From a pure structural 

process, the sponsoring entity or governing body would have in place assistance for 

administrative needs, legal support, standards acceptance mechanism and dissemination, website 

and other IT support and marketing. The sponsoring entity should set firm expectations of 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 209 of 337
Guidance Groups and absolutely expect compliance with such and demonstration of progress 

toward goals. 

What elements or models would facilitate the sharing of best practices and uniform 

practices across the Guidance Groups? 

SWGTOX supports the concept of a single supporting entity for all Guidance Groups. This body 

should have representation from each Guidance Group, with perhaps other interested groups also 

represented. The supporting entity must have funding to support the mission of the Guidance 

Groups. This supporting entity must have at least one on-site meeting annually to allow sharing 

and dissemination of information. 

SWGTOX also believes that it must be recognized that given the varied nature of the Guidance 

Groups that comprise forensic science, it is unreasonable to expect 100% uniformity in the 

sharing of best practices and uniform practices amongst the Guidance Groups. Thus, a model to 

accomplish such uniformity would have to vet areas where it is reasonable to expect that such 

could be accomplished. In this regard, it is reasonable to establish over-arching principles, such 

as Guidance Group mission, by-laws, document formatting, type-face, document voting 

practices, etc. When it comes to direct subject matter information, short of document formatting, 

it would be both unreasonable and disadvantageous to force uniform practices across the 

Guidance Groups. As long as each Guidance Group understands the basic frame work for how 

Guidance Groups should operate, that should suffice. 

What are the elements which make existing forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) 

successful? Are there examples of best practices in specific SWGs that ought to be 

replicated in Guidance Groups? If so, what are they? 

The one thread that all current SWGs have in common is the desire to make their individual 

disciplines as good as they can be. Unfortunately, this seems to have worked better for some than 

others based on funding for meetings and organizational skills. 

SWGTOX believes the successful SWGs are able to have frequent face-to-face meetings as well 

as telephonic/web-based meetings. These SWGs operate with clear agendas, expectations, goals 

and deadlines. Communication is at the heart of successful SWGs, not only to its membership, 

but to the affected community. The ability to compromise is tantamount to success. Substantial 

structure based on subcommittees is important, thus facilitating document generation followed 

by a voting and acceptance of standards process that affords all stakeholders an opportunity to be 

involved prior to the adoption of a standard. SWGTOX believes that successful SWGs generate 

standards of practice and use terms such as “must” and “shall” and NOT “should.” SWGTOX 

has implemented all of these best practices successfully, but continues to review its processes for 

efficiency and improvements. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 210 of 337
Would partnership with a standards development organization (SDO) in which the 

standard is issued by the SDO present any obstacle for participation by a broad range of 

forensic science stakeholders in the development of a standard? If so, why? 

SWGTOX does not support the use of an SDO in the generation of standards. The current use of 

an SDO for generation of some forensic-related standards (ASTM) has had numerous adverse 

outcomes and has not been endeared by the general forensic community across disciplines. First 

and foremost, the SWG loses control of the document. Additionally, by adding an additional 

layer of administration prior to acceptance, SDOs may not be agile or flexible enough to suit 

community needs in some fields and the time element can make a standard obsolete before it can 

even be implemented. SDOs are in the business of selling documents and, therefore, its interest, 

ultimately, would not be that of the Guidance Groups, but of the SDO. In a larger vein, 

SWGTOX believes that generated standards should be free to stakeholders. The use of SDOs 

may make standards unaffordable for many stakeholders. Moreover, some SDOs require 

stakeholders to pay to be able to vote or have a say in the production of a standard, which is both 

exclusionist and unfair. SWGTOX believes that elements of the SDO process should be 

followed, but independent of a specific SDO organization. SWGTOX has adopted a process that 

meets this need.

Would partnership with an SDO in which the standard is issued by the SDO present any 

obstacle to broad adoption of a standard? If so, why?

SWGTOX believes that if organizations were required to purchase the standards it would present 

a problem. It would be much better if all forensic science service providers had free access to the 

documents developed. SWGTOX also believes that a Guidance Group should be independent of 

government or SDO influence. The current practitioners in the field must be free to present ideas 

and policies without oversight by an agency with uncertain goals or self-interest. 

Would a fee-based membership model run through a not-for-profit organization (similar to 

the National Conference of Weights and Measures) present a significant obstacle for 

participation? 

SWGTOX believes that in these times of unbelievably tight budgets, any fee may be detrimental 

in attracting participation. Adding more fees for the laboratory will have consequences for the 

forensic laboratories. For example, many labs have lost training funds in exchange for 

accreditation. Additional fees for participation in a new model could end up cutting the operating 

and training budget of labs which would be counter-productive to the overall goal of improving 

quality within the field of forensic sciences. This process should not be at a cost to the 

stakeholders that are already giving their time, and energy, etc. Many stakeholders will not 

participate if you have to "buy your seat" on the Guidance Group. Funding and time will always 

be issues that stifle participation. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 211 of 337
If the Guidance Groups followed a fee-based membership model, are there appropriatelytiered systems for fees that would prevent ‘‘pricing out’’ organizations, including 

individuals? 

SWGTOX is concerned that state and local organizations will be negatively affected by a feebased membership model, and that these entities are necessary for the development of and 

implementation of guidance documents. In today's tight fiscal situation, a fee-based system 

would price out many agencies or organizations. This would promote a hierarchy in respect to 

influence within a Guidance Group. This then becomes a pay-to-play type organization, just the 

opposite of what the forensic sciences need at this point. The Guidance Groups should consist of 

selected individuals who have subject matter expertise, not anyone who can afford to "join." 

Other than a privatized model, are there other means to maintain a governance or 

coordinating body in the long term? If possible, please give examples of existing structures 

and their positive and negative attributes. 

This question presupposes that no major governmental body will oversee the guidance groups. 

SWGTOX believes that Guidance Groups could govern themselves as a group, with financial 

support from a sponsoring body. If the goal is to have the Guidance Groups independent of 

government oversight, this should be explicitly stated. One model would be that of the American 

Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) whereby there is a governance system for the Academy 

itself, which helps fund individual sections within the Academy but still gives autonomy to the 

individual sections. Guidance Groups could be run by chairs in coordination with elected 

members-at-large. 

In its role in administering and supporting the Guidance Groups, NIST’s aim is to improve 

discipline practices by advancing forensic science standards and techniques through a 

collaborative consensus building process with Federal, state and local community partners. 

NIST thus seeks comments about the ways in which the structure, function and operation 

would best support the Guidance Groups by being a catalyst for such improvements. 

NIST should seek examples from some of the more active SWGs such as SWGDAM, 

SWGDRUG and SWGTOX. Ideally, the current SWG system would be funded as an 

independent, volunteer system of practitioners, and subject matter experts in their fields, as well 

as issue-specific experts. 

NIST or another entity should act as a conduit for organizing meetings, communications through 

teleconferences and in-person meetings. They should provide financial support, technology 

support, and serve as a receptacle for gathering and disseminating documents. Although much 

work can be completed virtually, in-person meetings are crucial. This is the only way that busy 

professionals can dedicate their time and undivided attention to the important work of 

collaborating to write new standards. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 212 of 337
NIST should also ensure that there is representation of private laboratories that provide forensic 

services. 

If the Guidance Groups produce recommendations and standards of practice, and these standards 

are adopted by accrediting bodies that accredit forensic service providers, then those 

recommendations and standards would be integrated into the practice of all forensic service 

providers that are accredited. 

Given that the Guidance Groups cannot mandate the adoption of standards, what can they 

do to best leverage their position and encourage adoption? 

SWGTOX believes that Guidance Groups must create standards that establish the minimum 

standard of practice to ensure the quality of the test result, restricting practice when necessary to 

ensure quality and allowing flexibility of practice when possible. Use “shall”, “must” and not 

“should”. 

Once the standard has been adopted, laboratories will be able to voluntarily adopt the 

standard(s). Widespread dissemination and partnering with organizations to offer training on 

technical standards will be necessary and will promote voluntary adoption. Training of technical 

staff both at professional meetings and via on-line courses will spread word of the existence of 

adopted standards as well as provide tools for implementation at the laboratory level. Educating 

those responsible for funding and administering forensic science at all levels of society on 

adopted standards will also be necessary. 

Voluntary adoption by laboratories may not be effective but will follow a logical process 

whereby laboratories that do not accept the standards will find themselves having to explain in 

court why they have not embraced community accepted standards and practices. 

More effective and efficient adoption of standards would be accomplished through involvement 

of the accrediting bodies. If the work products of these groups are written as standards and not 

guidance, accrediting bodies can be encouraged to adopt these standards into their programs and 

accredit laboratories against them. If mandatory accreditation becomes a reality, it will help 

ensure the standards developed by the groups become required practices. 

To what extent does membership and transparency impact possible adoption of guidance 

at the state and local level? 

SWGTOX believes that both membership and transparency, or lack thereof, will have a 

significant impact on adoption of any product of a Guidance Group. 

Membership: 

The most effective way to encourage adoption is to ensure participation in the groups by the 

laboratories and individuals that will be using them. If the standards are compiled by discipline 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 213 of 337
specific experts that are currently practicing, it will be more reflective of the direction and 

practice that will be accepted by the community. By starting with representation from a variety 

of forensic service providers (large, small, private, federal, state, county, local, etc.) as well as 

discipline professional organizations, the individual forensic scientist will feel that they have a 

voice in the process. For example, SWGTOX membership includes the individuals from the 

professional bodies of Society of Forensic Toxicologists (SOFT), American Board of Forensic 

Toxicology (ABFT), AAFS, and the California Association of Toxicologists (CAT) and 

promotes communication and adoption of prepared standards. 

Transparency: 

Having open bylaws and a means for frequent communication with its stakeholders and an 

opportunity for public input will allow those with a vested interest to participate. Draft 

documents must be put through a public comment process. 

An active website and update presentations at forensic science professional meetings help keep 

stakeholders informed of the process, progress, and adoption of standards. 

Are there best practices or models to consider with regard to a structure that would 

encourage effective communication with the scientific community to explore research gaps 

and aid in recognizing research priorities? 

SWGTOX believes that stakeholders that represent research and academia along with 

practitioner input will increase the ability of a Guidance Group to identify research gaps and 

priorities. SWGTOX developed a subcommittee constructed in this manner to address the topic 

of research needs in forensic toxicology. Through the public comment process during the 

development of the recommendations, effective communication with the larger forensic 

toxicology community occurred on the topic of research. Presentations at scientific meetings are 

another mechanism to identify research needs. The meetings also offer an opportunity to have a 

conversation on the topic of research needs with practitioners. 

By including representatives or input from organizations relevant to the discipline, in addition to 

the traditional practitioners, academics etc., this will ensure representation of a large group of 

practitioners. If formalized, liaisons on the Guidance Groups could be responsible for seeking 

input on research needs from the board of directors (and membership) of the organizations they 

represent (e.g. ABFT, SOFT, etc.). 

Publication and dissemination of identified research needs to the community through 

professional organizations and professional journals must occur. A process for ongoing 

submission of ideas must be part of the process. 

SWGTOX believes that periodic review (currently annual for SWGTOX) of identified research 

gaps/priorities will need to be built into whatever process is implemented to allow for the 

continuous update and prioritization of research needs. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 214 of 337
How should NIST researchers engage with the Guidance Groups in support of the goal to 

strengthen the nation’s use of forensic science by supporting the development and 

propagation of forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of 

forensic science research and measurement standards, and verifying the scientific basis 

exists for each discipline? 

SWGTOX believes that first, it is important for the forensic science community to understand 

the full capability of NIST in these respects. Currently there is little understanding of what 

resources NIST brings to the table to aid in forensic science research, etc. NIST has experience 

with organizational structures associated with other groups, e.g., National Conference of Weights 

and Measures, and this experience should be brought to the table for consideration by the 

Guidance Groups. Guidance Groups will benefit from this experience and can consider lessons 

learned in this unique application of science and justice, government and private sectors. 

A baseline of information will need to be established for each discipline. What tests are 

performed? What is the current technology? What are the current measurement standards 

used/available? What research has been done? What is the scientific basis that exists? All of this 

information should be put into a web-based, searchable Forensic Science Database/Repository 

for research, scientific publications, legal transcripts, technology/IP, government reports, etc. A 

gap analysis will need to be performed. Based on the results of this gap analysis, then a plan can 

be developed to move forward. 

Given the diverse, multi-sector set of stakeholders in forensic science, representation in 

Guidance Groups must be carefully balanced and inclusive. 

SWGTOX believes that while this diversity may be true, it shouldn’t mean that all stakeholder 

groups must be represented within Guidance Groups. If all stakeholder groups were also 

represented, the Guidance Group would be too large to function effectively. If the standard being 

developed is purely scientific in nature, why would it be necessary to have law enforcement, an 

attorney or a judge involved in development? If a strong document approval process is in place, 

then all stakeholders will be able to comment on proposed standards. NIST needs to be careful to 

not err on the side of political correctness at the expense of a healthy functioning Guidance 

Group. 

It should be incumbent upon the Guidance Group’s governance mechanisms to determine who 

becomes a member. Practitioners and others with scientific expertise must make up the 

significant majority of any guidance group. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 215 of 337
Who are the stakeholders who should be represented on the Guidance Groups? What steps 

can NIST take to ensure appropriately broad representation within the Guidance Groups? 

What does balanced representation mean and how can it be achieved? 

SWGTOX believes that it is wise to limit members of a Guidance Group to those with relevant 

scientific knowledge or subject matter expertise. Stakeholders will, and representatives on a 

Guidance Group should, vary depending on the standard being developed. Forensic practitioners 

are key to the success of any Guidance Group. Ensure that the range of forensic service providers 

is represented in a Guidance Group by having practitioner representation from small to large 

providers, government (federal/state/county/local) and private sectors. Representatives from 

academia, accrediting bodies, industry, law enforcement, statistics, etc. should also be included 

when they have expertise in the topic for the standard under development. It would be unwise to 

set a requirement for Guidance Groups to include a set number of a certain type of representative 

(e.g., 15 scientists, 4 lawyers, a statistician, a biometrician, etc.) or to require representatives 

from certain organizations. If the Guidance Group is operating efficiently and effectively, 

members will rotate on and off once their subject matter expertise is no longer needed. Allow a 

Guidance Group to reach out to other consultants/advisors as needed. These consultants or 

advisors would not be voting members of the Guidance Group. 

What is the best way to engage organizations playing a role in forensic science, standards 

development and practice? 

SWGTOX believes that organizations playing a role in forensic science, standards development 

and practice should be able to participate in the Guidance Group standards development. They 

should be able to contribute by providing comments during the standards develop period. Public 

comment, with responses, should be mandatory prior to finalizing a document. Each and every 

organization may not be able to hold a seat on a Guidance Group, but they should be included 

via the standards review process. 

SWGTOX believes that it is possible that a Guidance Group liaison for the relevant forensic 

organizations, accrediting bodies, and certification bodies could be created (public, at-large 

position with no voting privilege). Alternatively, direct/indirect communication to these 

organizations could solicit input. Communication and planning of standards development should 

occur early on in the process to allow organizations to contribute their ideas and needs. They 

must have confidence that there is a plan with a timeline, and funding that supports the 

generation and dissemination of standards. 

Each Guidance Group should be given the latitude to proactively engage potential members and 

stakeholders (including these relevant organizations), but it should be an expectation monitored 

by the governing body of the Guidance Groups. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 216 of 337
How should interested parties who may not be direct participants in Guidance Groups, 

engage in a meaningful way to have an impact on issues in front of the Guidance Groups? 

SWGTOX believes that there should exist the following:

Two Public Comment Periods for Standards - First, a public comment period prior to 

development of documents should be required. A public intent document for each standard could 

be disseminated to outline each standard and its intended scope. This could be an “Open 

Comment” period in which individuals and/or organizations could provide existing practices, 

ideas of content (scope), questions, concerns, gaps, etc. Secondly, a public comment period 

during the final development of the standard prior to a consensus acceptance vote by the 

Guidance Group. Both public comment periods on each document are helpful in ensuring the 

document gets the correct message across to the community and the best standard is developed. 

The mechanism to advertise the public comment periods needs to be simple and easy, especially 

in communicating when a new document is out for public comment and the deadline for 

submitting comments. 

Continuous Ability to Receive Public Comments  All Guidance Groups should have a means 

for the public to communicate to it at any time (e.g., email, website survey, conference forums). 

Any individual or organization should have the option to send information and suggestions that 

might advance the discipline to a particular Guidance Group. 

Comprehensive and Executive Summary documentation of the Guidance Groups activities 

Guidance Groups should generate minutes of activities/meetings. This should include Action 

Items and Decisions. These could be provided upon request, but generally a more brief, 

Executive Summary of the minutes should be used to communicate on a regular basis. Document 

production must be transparent and provide ample opportunity for public comment by those that 

are not members of the group. This process allows for a better chance of acceptance of the final 

products by all stakeholders. 

Regular Communication of Guidance Group Activities  All Guidance Groups should be 

required to provide routine and timely updates of their activities to the interested communities. 

This communication could occur through multiple media/technology including website, 

newsletters, list serves, and/or presentations at regional/national conferences. 

Should all of the current forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) transition to 

Guidance Groups? 

SWGTOX believes that support should continue for either SWGs or Guidance Groups; both 

should not continue to exist. If the scope of their work is similar, it will be problematic to have 

both. A vetting process by the sponsoring organization will help determine the scientific need 

and merit for a particular group. Each should be evaluated on its current status of activity, 

accomplishments, and other “success” measures. Some SWGs have been inactive for multiple 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 217 of 337
years and, if they are included, they should have to meet current expectations of activity and 

structure. Both consolidation and further culling should take place whereby disciplines that do 

not have strong scientific underpinnings should not be supported. 

Upon completion of the vetting process, all Guidance Groups should adopt similar structural 

components as defined in earlier questions. Also, while all forensic disciplines should be 

represented, individual Guidance Groups may not be necessary. More broad scope Guidance 

Groups on a particular topic could be an alternative (e.g., forensic evidence collection). 

To what extent and in what ways must the Federal government, as well as state, local, 

tribal and territorial governments be involved at the outset? 

SWGTOX believes that the Guidance Groups need a single supporting body behind their efforts. 

The Federal Government should be primarily involved in funding and where certain expertise 

exists, participate in the formation of the standards. State and local government as well as private 

interests should also be involved in the identification of needs, review of current standards, etc. 

as well as development of new standards. Principally, Guidance Groups should be able to 

function independent of governmental agencies. Government agencies should not be able to 

influence the outcome-or the ability for employees to participate. All government agencies 

should commit to allowing staff to participate if chosen--providing there is a finite commitment. 

Are there broader groupings of forensic science disciplines that could form the basis of 

Guidance Groups than the current group of twenty-one SWGs? If so, what are those 

groupings? 

There may be value in organizing some Guidance Groups by topic and not discipline. Examples: 

1) Measurement Traceability and Measurement Uncertainty should have one document

developed for all disciplines; 2) Method validation for a quantitative test method would bring 

together toxicology and drug chemistry – purity determination; Weighing – Drug Chemistry and 

potentially any other discipline that had a test method where a weight had a significant impact on 

the final reported test result; 3) forensic evidence collection (to include sexual assault forensic 

examiners, CSI, fire& arson, explosives) once the initial standards are in place. The Guidance 

Group would need to have Subcommittees made up of the focused topic (above examples). 

However, until all groups are in a similar stage of development, this may not be useful except for 

specific tasks. Even with similar disciplines there are unique practices, matrices, items of 

evidence, and testing challenges. With a grouping approach, there would still need to be 

discipline-specific areas within that group which may defeat the purpose. 

SWGTOX believes that there may be value in some of the 21 current SWGs combining into 

uniform Guidance Groups if deemed possible or advantageous, e.g., pattern matching disciplines. 

However, it must be stressed that each forensic discipline has unique properties that will make 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 218 of 337
such groupings difficult. SWGTOX does believe, however, that certain operational components 

could be uniform amongst all Guidance Groups, e.g. some components of by-laws, formatting 

documents, etc. 

Is there a need for a crossdisciplinary functional approach (i.e. statistical analysis) and how 

could the Guidance Groups be structured to best address that need? 

 SWGTOX believes that for some subject areas this may be appropriate. Once the Guidance 

Groups have identified the standards that are required for that discipline, to include core standard 

topics required by all disciplines, common ground can be identified and multiple disciplines 

could work together on either a single standard on a topic for all disciplines or a standard for 

each discipline that have a common backbone of minimum standards of practice for that topic. 

To what extent do Guidance Groups need to support different forensic science disciplines 

differently from one another? 

SWGTOX embraces that each discipline has unique challenges. With participation of practicing 

professionals, these challenges can be addressed through the generation and adoption of 

standards. SWGTOX does not favor a one size fits all description for Guidance Groups. Certain 

areas could use communal support, e.g., availability of statisticians, but each Guidance Group 

should be left to decide when such use is necessary. As described above, such elements as 

uniform bylaws and accountability are a must, but centralized administrative oversight of the 

groups should allow for each group to fulfill its mission in a way that recognizes the diverse 

nature of the fields. 

Sincerely, 

SWGTOX Executive Committee 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 219 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 220 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 221 of 337
Response from Hirotaka Nakasone of SWG-Speaker 

E:\64GBSS3\0BCOE\0SWG-SPEAKER\Nakasone\NIST Announcement on Guidance Groups –

comments_hn.docx

1. Structure of the Guidance Groups

• Given the scope and principles of the Guidance Groups outlined here, what are structural models that could best support the

Guidance Groups, taking into account the technical, policy, legal, and operational aspects of forensic science?

Response: To best support the Guidance Groups (SWGs) the managing office at NIST will institute as much 

autonomy as possible for all GGs while providing an overarching global guidance, and support in:

! Funding for traveling cost for all members in each GG

! Funding for meeting facility and remote conference equipment for each GG

! Administrative assistance (coordinator, secretary for notes taking) in each Guidance Group 

meeting (in person or remote conferencing)

• What elements or models would facilitate the sharing of best practices and uniform practices across the Guidance Groups?

Response: One way to accomplish this goal is to hold an annual or a biannual ALL GG CHAIRS meetings. Or,

another model is the one used previously by the Biometrics Consortium – a mailing list where members of

Guidance Group could share ideas and make inquiries to other forensic Guidance Groups without having to know

specific members of any group. Yet another model is the one used by SWGDE to collaborate via a website. We

believe NIST can establish for all GGs a common infrastructure to create a unified process for public document

review and publication.

• Are there public policies or private sector initiatives in other countries that have successfully strengthened the nation’s use of

forensic science by supporting the development and propagation of forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying

needs of forensic science research and measurement standards, and verifying the scientific basis exists for each discipline? If

so, what are they?

Response: As of today none exists in the field of forensic and investigatory speaker recognition. Strengthening the

scientific basis of the discipline was the primary reason that the concerned scientists and practitioners from the FBI,

NIST, and other organizations established SWG-Speaker within the U.S. There are a couple of somewhat similar

international groups such as the International Association for Phonetic Acoustics (IAFPA), and the European Network

of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI). It would be beneficial if the NIST Office would facilitate and support the

technical information exchange with such international forensic science groups.

• What are the elements which make existing forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) successful? Are there examples of

best practices in specific SWGs that ought to be replicated in Guidance Groups? If so, what are they?

Response: Successful SWGs/GGs should have:

! Members with leadership, dedication, motivation, advanced academic qualifications

! Efficient bylaws

! Sufficient funding to cover members travel and bi-annual meeting arrangements

! Each member being well supported by his/her organization

! GGs/SWGs that produce high quality documents

! Efficient website that allows intersession communications, and sharing of working documents, good liaison 

with other SWG members, international colleagues,

! Connection to the legal community

! The SWG which has well balanced memberships composed of senior practitioners, scientists/engineers 

from local/state/federal government agencies.

• Would partnership with a standards development organization (SDO) in which the standard is issued by the SDO present any

obstacle for participation by a broad range of forensicsscience stakeholders in the development of a standard? If so, why?

Response: No, so long as a given GG/SWG is entitled to choose whether or not any document standard should go 

through the SDO (such as ANSI/NIST ITL) because not all intended standards should be subjected to a rigor of the 

SDO process. Other documents such as the National Standards for the biometric data transactions should go through 

the appropriate SDO. We think the SDO structure and other alternatives should also be available to support the public

review process for other SWG products such as best practices, guidelines, or recommendations. 

• Would partnership with an SDO in which the standard is issued by the SDO present any obstacle to broad adoption of a

standard? If so, why?

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 222 of 337
E:\64GBSS3\0BCOE\0SWG-SPEAKER\Nakasone\NIST Announcement on Guidance Groups –

comments_hn.docx

• Would a fee-based membership model run through a not-for-profit organization (similar to the National Conference of

Weights and Measures) present a significant obstacle for participation?

Response: The concept of membership fee should not be a part of this NIST model. It would be 

counterproductive. To strengthen the forensic science in the U.S., the given SWG/GG must create a collegial 

environment by selecting its own members based on qualifications and willingness to work together in a constructive 

atmosphere. On the other hand, participation must be open and transparent to all interested in the discipline. We 

would support a 2-tiered model perhaps labeled "members" and "advisors". "Advisors" could join on application 

without fee. "Members" would be elected by the GG.

• If the Guidance Groups followed a fee-based membership model, are there appropriately-tiered systems for fees that would

prevent ‘‘pricing out’’ organizations, including individuals?

Response: There would need to be such a tiered pricing but we have no idea what it would be – beyond the example

of the IAI where one has to pay annual dues and then elect to pay substantially more to participate in annual

conferences as well as pay one’s own way for travel and accommodations, etc. As the government budgets shrink

participation rates seem to go down.

• Other than a privatized model, are there other means to maintain a governance or coordinating body in the long term? If

possible, please give examples of existing structures and their positive and negative attributes.

Response: The National Academies of Science maintains many standing committees that have existed in some cases

for decades.

2. Impact of Guidance Groups

In its role in administering and supporting the Guidance Groups, NIST’s aim is to improve discipline practices by advancing forensic science

standards and techniques through a collaborative consensus building process with Federal, state and local community partners. NIST thus

seeks comments about the ways in which the structure, function and operation would best support the Guidance Groups by being a catalyst

for such improvements.

• Given that the Guidance Groups cannot mandate the adoption of standards, what can they do to best leverage their position

and encourage adoption? To what extent does membership and transparency impact possible adoption of guidance at the state

and local level?

Response: The membership should not be the requirement for the state, local organization to adopt the GGspromulgated best practices or standards. There should a formalized vehicle to enforce the healthy adoption of the

GG’s standards and best practice. For example, one such formalized vehicle can be an accreditation process conducted

by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD). Without this element of enforcing office,

dissemination/promulgation of standards and best practices are destined to phase out, be misused, or abused of the

good effort by Guidance Groups.

The ultimate test for any guidance given by a GG will be its acceptance by the courts in forensic proceedings.

Acceptance by the courts will require acceptance by the relevant scientific community independent of any

consideration of Daubert or Frye. Consequently, we need to ask, “Will the guidance be respected by the relevant

scientific community and, thus, the courts?”. To this end, transparency and membership will be central.

• Are there best practices or models to consider with regard to a structure that would encourage effective communication with the

scientific community to explore research gaps and aid in recognizing research priorities?

Response: Creating a structure to encourage scientific development is one of the primary functions of each GG. For

example, the newest SWG, Scientific Working Group for Forensic and Investigative Speaker Recognition (SWGSpeaker), designated one of its five ad hoc committees, the Research, Development, Test and Validation (RDT&E), to

focus on identifying research gaps and priorities. The RDT&E Ad hoc Committee is composed of members who are

scientific/technical representatives from government, research organizations, universities and industry.

• How should NIST researchers engage with the Guidance Groups in support of the goal to strengthen the nation’s use of

forensic science by supporting the development and propagation of forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying

needs of forensic science research and measurementstandards, and verifying the scientific basis exists for each discipline?

Response: The best mode of engagement for NIST researchers is to join the discipline-specific GG as a regular

(advisory or voting) member. Given that Standards are only a part of strengthening forensic science, NIST

researchers should participate on appropriate Guidance Groups to learn firsthand of the needs and trends of the

discipline underlying the Guidance Group.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 223 of 337
Response from Hirotaka Nakasone of SWG-Speaker 

E:\64GBSS3\0BCOE\0SWG-SPEAKER\Nakasone\NIST Announcement on Guidance Groups –

comments_hn.docx

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups

Given the diverse, multi-sector set of stakeholders in forensic science, representation in Guidance Groups must be carefully balanced and 

inclusive. 

• Who are the stakeholders who should be represented on the Guidance Groups? What steps can NIST take to ensure

appropriately broad representation within the Guidance Groups? What does balanced representation mean and how can it be

achieved?

Response: Although stakeholders may vary depending on the specific GG, clearly all GGs must include judges,

lawyers, legal organizations, academics, and scientists from the appropriate discipline and forensic practitioners. One

of the best answers to this question can be found in the recently established ‘Unified Bylaws for Forensic Scientific

Working Group’. The founding members the SWG-Speaker adopted the recommendations given by the Unified

Bylaws, and executed the selection process of balanced representation.

• What is the best way to engage organizations playing a role in forensic science, standards development and practice?

Response: If they can’t participate in the Groups then there should be an annual Guidance Group Chairs meeting with

leaders in various organizations to spend a few days presenting from and to the Chairs.

• How should interested parties who may not be direct participants in Guidance Groups, engage in a meaningful way to have an

impact on issues in front of the Guidance Groups?

Response: A list serve or mailing list would provide a way for non-members to participate in the input of ideas into the

Group processes and to receive feedback on issues and ideas.

• To what extent and in what ways must the Federal government, as well as state, local, tribal and territorial governments be

involved at the outset?

Response: Membership from the dominant forensic laboratories is important to establishing a critical mass of

pragmatic leadership. Membership from the Federal, state and tribal judicial communities is also important.

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups

• Should all of the current forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) transition to Guidance Groups?

Response: Yes. No currently active SWGs should be left out. If NIST chooses not to include any particular SWG as

part of GGs, a clear reason, justification and policy for the exclusion should be provided.

• Are there broader groupings of forensic science disciplines that could form the basis of Guidance Groups than the current group of

twenty-one SWGs? If so, what are those groupings?

Responses: Possible groupings by:

! Groupings by Discipline (Physical science, Biological science, Behavioral science)

! Groupings by Function (Physical science, biological science, biometric science, digital multimedia science)

• Is there a need for a cross-disciplinary functional approach (i.e. statistical analysis) and how could the Guidance Groups be

structured to best address that need? 

Response: Yes, there are common elements (or should be) in the sub-areass of statistics and legal considerations as well 

as the cross disciplinary issues of common vocabulary, testing methodologies, etc. Types of statistical analysis, 

probability theories and mathematical models vary depending on specific forensic discipline. So this needs assessment -

should be done by each GG. 

• To what extent do Guidance Groups need to support different forensic science disciplines differently from one another?

Response: Each discipline has a different history, level of forensic maturity and legal standing For example, the courts

have long accepted fingerprinting as a valid forensic science, but have questioned face and voice recognition. For some

disciplines, such as DNA, forensic acceptability is relatively new. . Some disciplines for which forensic evidence was once

widely accepted, such as bite mark and compositional analysis of bullet lead, have recently found their methods questioned.

Consequently, each GG will have a different set of tasks in responding to challenges such as the National Research

Council. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies

Press, 2009

Hirotaka(Nakasone(

FBI,(Chair(of(SWG7Speaker

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 224 of 337
Response from Jonathan Newman of the Centre of Forensic Sciences, Forensic Services and 

Coroner's Complex

Preamble

The Centre of Forensic Sciences is a Canadian provincial government laboratory that provides 

forensic science services for the province of Ontario, Canada. The Centre has two laboratories, 

a regional laboratory in Sault Ste. Marie and a new facility in Toronto that is one of the largest 

forensic science laboratories in the world. The Centre provides independent scientific laboratory 

services that support the administration of justice and public safety programs across the 

province. Law enforcement officers, crown attorneys, defence counsel, coroners, pathologists 

and other official investigative agencies make use of the Centre’s services.

The Centre is pleased to provide the following in response to the request for comments on the 

structure, impact, representation and scope of the Guidance Groups: 

1. Structure of the Guidance Groups

Guidance Groups need to work within a policy framework that provides direction and monitors 

output and success.

Work should be focused with specific tasks being assigned to the groups through a steering 

framework i.e. by the National Commission on Forensic Science through NIST. The tasks 

should be assigned to ensure that the scientific elements of policy and legislation are given due 

consideration and that the output from the groups can interface with policy development, 

advance the science and support robust well informed legislation.

There must be a co-ordinated framework for the development of information, solicitation of input 

and feedback from the wider forensic community, and publication of the final products through a 

single journal or website.

The program must provide a unified model for the development, dissemination and publication 

of information. The current Scientific Working Group (SWG) model has worked in some 

respects but not in others. Some of the SWGs have worked well in generating good guidance 

documents and standards however tasks often take a long time to get completed. Some SWGs 

publish in discipline specific journals, some develop ASTM standards, some post to SWG 

websites, and some do not disseminate any information to the community. Clearly there is a 

need for the variety of practices to be made more uniform. 

It would be advantageous to have forensic specific standards informed through the collective 

input of Guidance Groups. The development of forensic science specific quality standards is 

done by accrediting bodies, resulting in variations depending on the accrediting body engaged 

by a specific laboratory. To increase the uniformity of forensic science specific standards the 

development of a linkage with the ISO Forensic Science Technical committee or the American 

National Standards Institute (US ISO representative) should be explored.

2. Impact of Guidance Groups

The impact for any work and output produced by the Guidance Groups should be aligned so as 

to address the forensic science industry / discipline specific issues that were identified in the 

NAS report.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 225 of 337
Response from Jonathan Newman of the Centre of Forensic Sciences, Forensic Services and 

Coroner's Complex

The distinction between published best practices, guidelines and standards should be made 

clear. This can be achieved in part by any “standards” being produced and published by a 

standards development organization.

To ensure that published best practices and guidelines are a catalyst for improvement it is 

important that Guidance Groups have the appropriate membership and that the wider forensic 

science community is fully engaged in the development process.

Forensic science laboratories and practitioners already know many of the gaps in testing and 

research but do not have the opportunity or funding to perform the academic research needed 

to answer these often difficult questions. A system where agencies can identify such needs and 

be a part of the support system to academics or other researchers would be a significant 

benefit. The oversight infrastructure and the Guidance Groups can identify the gaps and the 

mechanisms to address through a focused program of research. The appropriate research 

entity can be identified e.g. academic, practitioner, NIST researcher etc and guidance provided 

that can be used for the evaluation of grant funding applications.

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups

The development of forensic science in Canada closely parallels that which occurs south of the 

border. Canadian forensic scientists have been active participants in many of the US-SWG’s for 

many years. Guidance Groups would benefit from the continued participation of scientists from 

government forensic science laboratories in Canada. This will ensure common forensic science 

technologies and standards being applied to the scientific investigation of cases that “cross 

borders”. 

Representatives should come from a cross-section of independent, academic and government 

scientists.

Consideration should be given to “parent” organizations such as American Society of Crime 

Laboratory Directors providing a mechanism for identifying, proposing and supporting Guidance 

group members.

The work and activities of the guidance group must include a high degree of transparency and 

outreach. This will facilitate the engagement of the wider forensic science community in the 

collective endeavour of improving forensic science. The potential for web-casts of any in person 

meetings of the Guidance Groups should be explored.

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups

There is a current need to bring in uniformity to the way that the SWGs are structured, the way 

they work and disseminate information. Transitioning all SWGs to Guidance Groups is an 

opportunity to standardize and bring uniformity to them. All Guidance Groups should be

structured in the same way through terms of reference. 

There is a need to consolidate some of the SWGs and recognize the need for cross-disciplinary 

Guidance Groups. For example a pattern recognition group would cross over disciplines such 

as fingerprints, firearms, documents and physical matches. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 226 of 337
Response from Jonathan Newman of the Centre of Forensic Sciences, Forensic Services and 

Coroner's Complex

A cross disciplinary group that is able to address the issue of report language uniformity, the 

statistical treatment of data and the statistical support for evidential weight will be essential if the 

objective is to verify that a sufficient scientific basis exists for all disciplines. 

Jonathan Newman 

Deputy Director - Scientific Services 

Centre of Forensic Sciences

Forensic Services and Coroner's 

Complex

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 227 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 228 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 229 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 230 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 231 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 232 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 233 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 234 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 235 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 236 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 237 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 238 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 239 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 240 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 241 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 242 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 243 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 244 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 245 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 246 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 247 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 248 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 249 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 250 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 251 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 252 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 253 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 254 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 255 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 256 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 257 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 258 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 259 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 260 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 261 of 337
Response from Ronald D. Oliver 

Structure of Groups

 There are well recognized general concepts that all forensic scientists should follow, however a 

forensic scientist from one discipline may not be fully informed on the technical aspects of another 

discipline. Therefore care must be taken to see that Forensic Biologists are not creating standards for 

Firearms Examiners.

 My personal vision is a type of filter down system where certain general principals that are applicable 

to all forensic scientists would be established at the highest level. For instance, accreditation by a 

recognized body in a particular field of forensic science. Regardless of the discipline or the type of 

analysis this is a goal all forensic laboratories should be striving for. Peer review of reports, analytical 

procedures and methods is another desirable safeguard that should be built into any forensic discipline.

 So there would be the "big picture" folks who would propose these broad guidelines. Perhaps this is 

a rotating membership board with scientists from many disciplines.

 However, when it comes to a specific discipline such as blood alcohol toxicology I would prefer to 

see practicing forensic scientists at the bench level have more input. Perhaps an ad hoc committee of

selected delegates, chaired by one or more of the big picture folks. It will also be important to have a 

cross section of labs represented, from labs that do a 100 samples a day to those that only run a few 

dozen samples a month. Care must be taken to not exclude a valid scientific method, just because it is 

not a method used by the committee members. For instance, members might conclude that all standards 

should be prepared by weight (mass) using properly calibrated scales. This would exclude smaller labs 

that prepare their standards by volume using calibrated pipettes. An alternative method with a slightly 

higher degree of uncertainty, but a reliable method none the less.

There are many methods to properly analyze a blood sample for the presence and quantity of ethanol. 

Gas Chromatography, automated enzymatic analyzers or the Dubowski-Withrow method can all yield 

acceptable valid results, so it is not a question of which method was utilized, but was that method utilized 

in a manner that produced results that were accurate and reproducible.

 Perhaps the hardest element to avoid is what I call the "King of the World" complex. This is the way 

WE DO IT IN OUR LAB therefore everyone else should do it exactly like us. The emphasis must be on 

the quality of the science, not individual perceptions or egos.

Impact of the Groups

 The impact will be nation wide and ripple through all courts in every State. Driving While Intoxicated 

(DWI) is the most contested forensic test in any court system in any State. This is due to the volume of 

cases presented to the courts which in turn provides a living for attorneys who specialize in this type of 

case, both defense and prosecution. Because the latest news or tactic spreads through this community

very rapidly, any announcement or proclamation regarding what should or should not be done will be 

argued in many courts across the nation the very next day, if not the same day. So the impact will be 

immediate.

 However, regardless of impact the goal is to provide guidance to insure good science. Tell the truth 

and damn the consequences.

Scope of Groups

 The emphasis should not be on the method of analysis but whether or not good scientific principles 

are being followed that insure accurate and reproducible results. This is hard to do for many 

people. They want to micromanage how a given procedure is performed instead of stepping back and 

asking the bigger questions. How were the standards used to calibrate the instrument verified? Were the 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 262 of 337
Response from Ronald D. Oliver 

control standards analyzed under the same conditions as the unknown standards? What procedures are 

in place to insure accurate results? What happens if a control standard is out of tolerance?

 The goal should NOT be to define the single method that must be used by all forensic scientists to 

perform a certain analysis. The goal must be to determine if valid scientific principles and methods were 

applied to the analysis to ensure correct results.

Representation of the Groups

 Wherever possible, practicing Forensic Scientists should be involved at all levels. Academic, legal, 

and laboratories supervisors should all have input, but the scientists should have the ultimate say as to 

the application of scientific principles.

Thank you for this opportunity,

Ron

Ronald D. Oliver

Technical Supervisor 

Technical Supervisor Area 04 

Breath Alcohol Laboratory 

Texas Department of Public Safety 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 263 of 337
Scott R. Oulton

SWGDRUG Chair 

Arlington, VA 22202 

National Institute of Standards and Technology

100 Bureau Drive, Mailstop 8102

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Dear Ms. Ballou:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the notice published in the Federal Register by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding Possible Models for the Administration 

and Support of Discipline-Specific Guidance Groups for Forensic Science. The Scientific Working Group 

for the Analysis of Seized Drugs (SWGDRUG) offers the following perspective and opinions. Should you 

have any questions or require clarification for any response below, please just let me know. 

First and foremost, the existing Scientific Working Group (SWG) model has a proven track record of 

being extremely valuable to the forensic science and legal communities. It is unclear why NIST is 

proposing to create a new model using Guidance Groups (GG) when a proven model for forensic 

science disciplines already exists. SWGs and their standards have been promulgated for nearly two 

decades. Courts rely on SWG minimum standards in forensic science evidence admissibility hearings 

(e.g., Daubert). SWG standards are not only published in academic forensic science textbooks as good 

laboratory practices, but are taught in forensic science degree programs. Lastly, the instrument 

manufacturers in private industry continue to cite SWGs touting that their products meet or exceed

SWG standards. SWGs have a well-established name in forensic science, academic and legal arenas, so 

why start over?

It is fully recognized that the current SWG model is not perfect and does in fact require enhancements, 

so why not start there? The primary criticisms of SWGs identified in the NAS report “Strengthening 

Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward” were that SWGs: meet irregularly; have no 

clear funding; have no standardized membership standards; recommendations are not enforceable; 

and don’t measure their impact by formal survey. Rather than create a new model using GGs, it is 

recommended that NIST consider strengthening the existing SWG model by addressing those identified 

criticisms. NIST could simply absorb the current SWGs (name included) under their umbrella and 

establish a governing body which provides: a clear source of annual Federal funding; shared resources; 

uniform membership standards; uniform bylaws; mandated use of Standard Developing Organizations

(SDO); overall administration; etc. 

1 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 264 of 337
1. Structure of the Guidance Groups

x QUESTION: Given the scope and principles of the Guidance Groups outlined here, what are

structural models that could best support the Guidance Groups, taking into account the 

technical, policy, legal, and operational aspects of forensic science? What elements or models 

would facilitate the sharing of best practices and uniform practices across the Guidance 

Groups?

ANSWER: NIST should provide overall administration (funding, meeting venues, IT support, 

etc.) of the SWGs and create an executive board of SWG chairs/members that are responsible 

for harmonizing the SWGs (bylaws, standard setting practices, glossary of terms, membership 

standards, etc.). This executive board could then use a system similar to that of SDOs for the 

adoption of their governance documents. Once a governance document is established, the 

individual SWGs must comply. 

x QUESTION: Are there public policies or private sector initiatives in other countries that have 

successfully strengthened the nation’s use of forensic science by supporting the development 

and propagation of forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of 

forensic science research and measurement standards, and verifying the scientific basis exists

for each discipline? If so, what are they?

ANSWER: There are many organizations in other countries that exist that have strengthened 

the nation’s use of forensic science. Just to name a few: European Network for Forensic 

Science Institutes (ENFSI); International Forensic Strategic Alliance (IFSA); Senior Managers of 

Australian and New Zealand Forensic Laboratories (SMANSZFL); Iberoamerica Academy of 

Criminalistics and Forensic Studies (AICEF); Asian Forensic Science Network (AFSN); and United 

Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). As an example, SWGDRUG has a strong 

collaboration with ENFSI’s Drug Working Group. Each organization endorses the other’s work 

products and close communication exists to pool resources such that the two organizations are 

not working on the same projects. This has led to even more standard/recommendation 

development over the past decade.

x QUESTION: What are the elements which make existing forensic Scientific Working Groups 

(SWGs) successful? Are there examples of best practices in specific SWGs that ought to be 

replicated in Guidance Groups? If so, what are they?

ANSWER: Primarily, strong leadership, consistent funding and actively engaged members. 

Membership established by representing larger forensic science institutions (e.g., UNODC, 

ENFSI, ASCLD, AAFS, NIST, SWAFS, etc.) proves to be more successful than individual 

organizations. By representing larger institutions, it requires information transfer to all levels

for a much broader audience including local, state, federal and international entities. Forensic 

science is an international endeavor, as such; SWGs must have representation from 

international organizations to be effective and globally recognized. This concept is similar to 

laboratories being accredited to international standards; it carries much more weight to be 

internationally recognized. Smaller groups are in fact more productive, as such it is 

2 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 265 of 337
recommended to maintain a group of less than 30 individuals. Other best practices include: 

Soliciting the public for comments; seeking international acceptance; and working with SDOs to 

promulgate standards.

x QUESTION: Would partnership with a standards development organization (SDO) in which the 

standard is issued by the SDO present any obstacle for participation by a broad range of 

forensics science stakeholders in the development of a standard? If so, why?

ANSWER: Partnership with an SDO or establishing standards following international standard 

setting protocols are absolutely essential. For broad range forensic science stakeholders there 

are only minimal obstacles (membership fees, standard costs, etc.), none of which are

insurmountable. 

x QUESTION: Would partnership with an SDO in which the standard is issued by the SDO present 

any obstacle to broad adoption of a standard? If so, why? 

ANSWER: No, in fact it would actually help with the broad range adoption and enforcement of 

the standard. Once standards are generated, accrediting bodies can use them in assessing 

laboratories conformance with internationally recognized standards.

x QUESTION: Would a fee-based membership model run through a not-for-profit organization 

(similar to the National Conference of Weights and Measures) present a significant obstacle for

participation?

ANSWER: Yes. The National Conference of Weights and Measures has an entire economy that 

is based on an extremely large consumer base which corresponds to minimal costs. Forensic 

Science organizations are primarily an inherent Governmental function and the consumer base 

is relatively small in comparison, which would result in prohibitive costs to participate. The fee 

based membership will automatically result in exclusion of lower funded organizations, which in 

turn will result in bias. A truly non-biased system must not be influenced by things such as

available financial resources. As such, all efforts need to be focused on obtaining a steady 

reliable source of Federal funding.

x QUESTION: If the Guidance Groups followed a fee-based membership model, are there 

appropriately-tiered systems for fees that would prevent ‘‘pricing out’’ organizations, including 

individuals?

ANSWER: As indicated above, a fee based system is not recommended and would be expected 

to create a system of the “haves and have-nots” which will result in bias. However, should a 

fee-based membership model be adopted, consider a tiered system for laboratory 

organizations that is based upon the number of proficiency tested personnel. Generally, larger 

organizations have more available funding than smaller ones; this might help to provide smaller 

organizations the ability to participate. As for other members such as academia, consider 

establishing a flat minimal fee that would mimic that of a small laboratory. It is also not 

recommended to allow other entities such as instrument manufacturers be able to “buy a seat” 

on a SWG as it could lead to additional bias. 

3 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 266 of 337
x QUESTION: Other than a privatized model, are there other means to maintain a governance or 

coordinating body in the long term? If possible, please give examples of existing structures and 

their positive and negative attributes.

ANSWER: As indicated in the introduction above, the best model is to restructure the current 

SWGs under NIST’s umbrella rather than create a new model. It is recommended that NIST 

consider strengthening the existing SWG model by addressing the aforementioned criticisms. 

NIST could simply absorb the current SWGs (name included) and establish a governing body 

which provides: a clear source of annual Federal funding; shared resources; uniform 

membership standards; uniform bylaws; mandated use of Standard Developing Organizations 

(SDO); overall administration; etc.

2. Impact of Guidance Groups

x QUESTION: Given that the Guidance Groups cannot mandate the adoption of standards, what 

can they do to best leverage their position and encourage adoption? To what extent does 

membership and transparency impact possible adoption of guidance at the state and local 

level?

ANSWER: SWGs need to first seek out international acceptance in the form of converting their 

recommendations to a standard using either an SDO or an equivalent process. International 

accreditation would then play the next biggest role in enforcing the standards. There is a clause 

in ISO/IEC 17025 under section 5.4.2 Selections of methods that includes language that 

indicates that “Methods published in international, regional or national standards shall 

preferably be used and when the customer does not specify the method to be used, the 

laboratory shall select appropriate methods that have been published either in international, 

regional or national standards, or by reputable technical organization...” Accrediting bodies 

could then assess laboratories against this clause. In addition, adoption of SWG standards by 

the National Commission on Forensic Sciences (NCFS) would go a long way to promulgate 

forensic science best practices. The NCFS as chartered would carry a wide variety of 

stakeholders to include the legal community, forensic science practitioners, educators, etc. 

NIST should also consider a significant effort to establish an outreach committee tasked with 

regularly engaging forensic science organizational meetings, legal community, law enforcement 

community and discipline specific groups like IAI and AFTE. 

x QUESTION: Are there best practices or models to consider with regard to a structure that 

would encourage effective communication with the scientific community to explore research 

gaps and aid in recognizing research priorities?

ANSWER: The best way to proceed is to continue to have an open dialogue with the forensic 

science community, academia, legal and law enforcement communities to continue to dream 

up basic research and further develop applied research. The open dialogue can be best 

achieved through the use of interactive websites, webinars, and participation in forensic 

science meetings. These venues provide the core structure to ask those questions on what 

would help the community move forward. The SWG groups are also an excellent source for 

research direction, especially for applied research. Under the structured bylaws overseen by 

4 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 267 of 337
NIST, the mission of developing research objectives should be added to each group. In order to 

build on disciplines with related methodology or expertise, research objectives could then be 

brought to the executive board of SWG chairs/members for review.

x QUESTION: How should NIST researchers engage with the Guidance Groups in support of the 

goal to strengthen the nation’s use of forensic science by supporting the development and

propagation of forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of 

forensic science research and measurement standards, and verifying the scientific basis exists

for each discipline?

ANSWER: NIST should primarily provide expertise in the field of statistical determinations and 

traceability of reference materials. NIST is the resident expert in these two scientific areas and 

their assistance would be critical to the success of the SWGs. 

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups

x QUESTION: Given the diverse, multi-sector set of stakeholders in forensic science,

representation in Guidance Groups must be carefully balanced and inclusive. Who are the 

stakeholders who should be represented on the Guidance Groups?

ANSWER: First and foremost, the forensic science practitioners need to have the largest voice. 

Forensic science practitioners have the necessary education, skills, training and experience to 

provide the most valuable contribution. Academia would have a secondary role; they provide 

valuable insight that is critical to the process. It is recommended that the selected individuals 

represent a larger, multi-agency forensic science organization to assist with cross 

communication. As stated before, international participation is highly recommended as it 

provides more weight when standards are being developed globally. It is not necessary to 

permanently staff each SWG with legal professionals, statisticians, etc., as they would only be 

required on an as needed or invited basis. Commercial entities should not be involved in the 

SWGs because of the potential for undue influence in favor of their commercial products. That 

said, this would not prevent commercial entities the ability to provide input during SWG public

comments periods and to join a particular SDO so that they could be part of the process of 

developing standards. 

x QUESTION: What steps can NIST take to ensure appropriately broad representation within the 

Guidance Groups? 

ANSWER: The most effective step is to establish standardized bylaws which include the 

makeup of the membership and rules with how members are recommended and chosen.

x QUESTION: What does balanced representation mean and how can it be achieved?

ANSWER: To obtain balanced representation, stakeholders must first be sought out and 

identified. Then, members need to be sought that capture the majority of the stakeholders in 

the appropriate ratios, much like what is done with the formation of SDO committees. It is also 

5 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 268 of 337
important to cap the group size to maximize productivity, which is recommended at less than 

30 individuals.

x QUESTION: What is the best way to engage organizations playing a role in forensic science, 

standards development and practice?

ANSWER: Creating a transparent openly-publicized system that provides the ability for 

stakeholders to become active members of the organization and offers many opportunities for 

input into the process. Requests for community input should move past drafted standards and 

also include ideas for future standards, projects, research and measurement of how community 

needs are met. 

x QUESTION: How should interested parties who may not be direct participants in Guidance 

Groups, engage in a meaningful way to have an impact on issues in front of the Guidance 

Groups?

ANSWER: At a minimum, SWGs must provide public comment opportunities to allow interested 

parties the ability to comment on proposed standards – much like the Federal Register process. 

Then, it is recommended that documents be presented to an SDO or other SDO compatible 

process. The reason the SDO process is being recommended as secondary is that SDOs are 

typically only open to members of that organization, thus limiting the standardization process 

to a smaller group of stakeholders. In summary, it is recommended that both processes be 

incorporated to allow the ability for all interested parties to have a voice. 

x QUESTION: To what extent and in what ways must the Federal government, as well as state, 

local, tribal and territorial governments be involved at the outset?

ANSWER: Efforts should be made to ensure that entities from all levels are included. However, 

care must be taken as to not “stack the deck” by creating an inequity between larger and 

smaller organizational participation.

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups

x QUESTION: Should all of the current forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) transition to 

Guidance Groups?

ANSWER: As indicated in the introduction, it is strongly recommended that the current SWGs 

“carry the torch” forward and be the building blocks that NIST further refines throughout this 

process. It is not understood why NIST proposes to establish Guidance Groups when such a 

viable and valuable option already exists in the SWGs. SWGs already have a well-established 

history and are highly recognized by academia, private industry, courts and the domestic and 

international forensic science community. The most productive SWGs already have nearly two 

decades of experience and standards that have been developed, why start over? Lastly, there 

is at least one SWG that will remain a SWG as a result of a Congressional mandate. It seems 

that it would cause unnecessary confusion to have any SWG continue to operate as a SWG 

while the other SWGs are dispersed into Guidance Groups. Why not simply transition all 

6 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 269 of 337
existing SWGs under NIST’s umbrella and allow them to keep their name while providing more 

oversight and administration?

x QUESTION: Are there broader groupings of forensic science disciplines that could form the 

basis of Guidance Groups than the current group of twenty-one SWGs? If so, what are those 

groupings?

ANSWER: Yes, several groups do share similar methodology and therefore could share 

resources. However, typically when groupings are established, discipline specific issues fall 

victim to competing priorities. Whereas if dedicated and focused forensic disciplines are kept 

separate, they have a much better chance of proactively reacting to the community needs. In

SWGDRUG, we have found it beneficial to have a member with expertise in Toxicology, since 

the methodologies are related. This has allowed us to focus on seized drug issues but gain a 

different perspective. 

x QUESTION: Is there a need for a cross disciplinary functional approach (i.e. statistical analysis) 

and how could the Guidance Groups be structured to best address that need?

ANSWER: Yes, the governance body must address the question of “statistics” across all forensic 

disciplines. NIST is the resident expert when it comes to statistics, maybe they could establish a 

working group that is assigned to support the work of all SWGs. 

x QUESTION: To what extent do Guidance Groups need to support different forensic science 

disciplines differently from one another?

ANSWER: It is fundamental to the success of the SWGs that difference be allowed. However, it 

is incumbent upon NIST or the governance board to attempt to standardize the forensic science 

across disciplines to the extent possible. The governance board would do this by defining 

requirements as indicated above.

Sincerely,

Scott R. Oulton

SWGDRUG Chair 

7 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 270 of 337
Response from Brian L Peterson 

Sent:!Monday,!November!04,!2013!5:58!PM

To:!Ballou,!Susan!M

Subject:!Forensic!Science!Guidance!Groups

Dear!Ms.!Ballou:

You!have!likely!received!plenty!of!comments!already,!so!I!will!make!mine!very!brief.!In!my!opinion,!the!

standards!that!I!need!and!value!as!a!forensic!pathologist!medical!examiner!are!those!set!by!the!National!

Association!of!Medical!Examiners!(NAME).!Any!attempt!to!add!extra!or!"outside"!rules,!standards,!etc.,!

would!be!of!less!than!no!value!and!would!likely!be!ignored!by!my!peers.!We have!our!standards.!I!

suspect!the!best!move!that!could!be!made!by!the!federal!government!with!respect!to!forensic!pathology!

standards!would!be!to!accept!those!of!NAME!as!written.!Our!organization!has!worked!and!reWworked!

these!standards!over!the!years,!and!they!do!represent!the!best!and!most!accepted!that!could!be!

produced!by!a!highly!trained!and!professional!organization.

Cordially,

Brian!L!Peterson,!M.D.

Medical!Examiner

Milwaukee!County,!WI

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 271 of 337
Response from Mark Pollitt 

Dear%Sue,%%

I%am%sending%this%in%response%to%the%NIST%request%for%input%concerning%the%proposed%evolution%

of%the%SWGs%to%Advisory%Groups.%%And%while%you%personally%know%my%background,%for%the%

record%I%have%been%actively%involved%in%digital%forensics%since%1987.%%I%am%the%former%Chair%of%

SWGDE,%the%International%Organization%on%Computer%Evidence%(IOCE),%as%well%as%a%leader%or%

participant%in%number%of%INTERPOL%and%G8%groups%and%meetings.%I%served%as%both%a%Field%and%

Laboratory%Forensic%Examiner%in%the%FBI’s%Digital%Evidence%program%and%was%s%Supervisory%

Special%Agent%and%Unit%Chief%for%the%FBI%Laboratory%(now%OTD)%Computer%Analysis%Response%

Team%(CART).%I%was%a%strong%advocate%of%standardization%and,%along%with%Carrie%Whitcomb,%led%

the%drive%to%have%digital%evidence%included%in%both%the%ASCLDULAB%accreditation%process%and%as%

a%section%in%the%American%Academy%of%Forensic%Sciences%(AAFS).%%I%am%a%Fellow%of%the%Digital%and%

Multimedia%Sciences%Section%of%the%AAFS.%

I%currently%am%an%Associate%Professor%of%Engineering%Technology%at%Daytona%State%College%and%

am%the%Principal%Investigator%for%a%large%National%Science%Foundation%grant%focused%on%

developing%cybersecurity%education%programs,%with%emphasis%on%digital%forensics,%throughout%

the%Southeast%United%States.%

Let%me%begin%my%comments%with%the%notion%that%a%collaborative%body%of%stakeholders,%focused%

on%a%quality%improvement%process%for%forensic%disciplines%is%not%only%a%good%idea,%it%may%be%the%

only%way%to%improve%the%practice%of%forensic%science%at%a%national%level.%The%question%is%not%

whether%there%should%be%such%bodies,%but%rather%the%form%that%they%take%and%the%way%in%which%

the%government%interacts%with%them.%I%would%like%to%address%each%of%these%in%turn.%

A%key%element%of%the%value%in%such%groups%is%their%makeup.%One%analogy%that%I%would%use%is%that%

of%the%enterprise%architecture%notion%of%getting%from%the%“as%is”%to%the%“to%be.”%The%only%way%to%

determine%what%is%actually%occurring%in%laboratories%across%the%country%is%to%have%broad%

participation%by%practitioners.%This%includes:%large%and%small%organizations;%state%and%federal;%

and%private%sector%organizations.%Limiting%the%body%to%only%one%group%will%not%serve%the%

strategic%goal%of%improving%forensic%science%as%a%“system.”%While%I%am%on%the%topic%of%

participation,%one%of%the%most%productive%things%we%did%with%SWGDE%was%to%pay%the%way%for%

organizations%which%did%not%have%the%resources%to%attend%on%their%own.%In%some%ways,%these%are%

the%organizations%that%we%really%need%to%hear%from%and%address%their%needs.%So,%I%am%opposed%to%

a%membership%model%focused%primarily%on%large%and/or%federal%labs,%especially%one%that%

excludes%those%who%most%need%help%improving%the%quality%of%their%work.%%

At%the%risk%of%appearing%selfUserving,%I%would%suggest%that%academics,%both%researchers%and%

teachers,%need%to%participate%in%the%process.%One%advantage%of%this%is%to%have%input%on%the%

longerUterm%view%of%the%direction%of%the%science%and%technologies.%It%will%also%provide%people%

whose%primary%perspective%is%that%of%the%science,%not%of%practice.%Further,%it%will%ensure%that%

people%entering%the%forensic%profession%will%be%trained%in%the%latest%paradigms.%Academics%also%

tend%to%be%pedagogically%focused%and%sensitive%to%how%outcomes%are%measured.%

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 272 of 337
Response from Mark Pollitt 

The%issue%of%participation%by%industry%is%a%thorny%one.%I%would%separate%private%sector%entities%

providing%forensic%examination%from%those%selling%tools,%instruments,%reagents,%and%such.%The%

former%group%clearly%needs%to%participate%and%be%heard.%The%second%group%is%problematic.%While%

they%can%provide%input%into%where%technologies%are%going,%it%is%difficult%for%them%to%separate%

their%economic%interest%with%the%interest%of%the%profession.%Consideration%might%be%given%to%

providing%limited%access,%without%voting%rights%to%this%group.%

% NIST%has%requested%input%concerning%the%consolidation%of%working%groups.%In%my%

opinion,%this%is%somewhat%problematic,%as%there%is%a%tradeUoff%between%detailed%familiarity%with%

the%practice%of%a%specific%forensic%discipline%and%the%management%of%programs.%I%think%that%

consolidation%may%work%to%dilute%the%technical%focus%of%the%groups%and%make%obtaining%

consensus%much%more%difficult.%%

% Thomas%Kuhn,%in%this%seminal%book,%The$Structure$of$Scientific$Revolutions,%tells%us%that%

one%of%the%core%elements%defining%a%science%is%a%consensus%of%the%practitioners.%The%current%

SWG%system,%while%far%from%perfect,%in%many%ways%fulfills%this%role.%The%notion%of%restricting%

membership%or%limiting%the%voice%of%the%practitioners%moves%us%away%from%legitimate%science,%

not%towards%it.%

% The%unilateral%decision%of%the%Department%of%Justice%to%specifically%exclude%digital%

evidence%was%highly%inappropriate.%Digital%evidence%has%become%one%of%the%most%prevalent%and%

potent%forms%of%evidence%in%the%21st%Century.%The%collection,%examination,%analysis,%and%

presentation%of%digital%evidence%as%a%forensic%disciple%have%been%well%established.%Digital%

evidence%labs%are%accredited,%educational%programs%in%digital%evidence%are%accredited%and%there%

are%numerous%professional%certifications%in%the%field.%The%Digital%and%Multimedia%Sciences%

Section%of%the%American%Academy%of%Forensic%Sciences%is%one%of%the%fastest%growing%sections.%

The%discipline%has%reached%a%remarkable%level%of%maturity%in%a%relatively%short%period%of%time.%

Trying%to%ignore%the%discipline’s%current%maturity%is%bad%enough.%Suggesting%that%the%

improvement%of%this%critical%source%of%evidence%should%be%deferred%to%the%future%ignores%its%very%

impact%on%the%criminal%justice%system.%

Science,%like%most%academic%pursuits,%flourishes%in%an%open%environment,%where%the%exchange%

of%views%and%experiences%improves%and%enriches%the%community.%We%all%wish%to%see%the%science%

and%practice%of%forensics%improved.%Let%us%commit%to%an%open%and%collegial%approach.%%

Respectfully%submitted,%

Mark%M.%Pollitt,%Ph.D.%

Mark Pollitt, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Engineering Technology

Principal Investigator, Advanced Cybersecurity Education (ACE) Consortium

NSF ATE Award 1204800

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 273 of 337
Response from Eric Ray 

To whom it may concern, 

Re: Comments on Possible Models for the Administration and Support of Discipline-Specific 

Guidance Groups for Forensic Science 

Please consider the following comments as you began to transition the Scientific Working 

Groups (SWG's) into discipline-specific Guidance Groups. My comments will mainly be 

focused on the latent fingerprint discipline, its associated Guidance Group, and the Scientific 

Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST). 

1. Structure of the Guidance Groups

The structure of the Guidance Groups should be mainly based on the most successful of the 

SWG's. These groups have evolved since their inception to provide valuable guidelines and 

standards for each forensic discipline. SWGFAST in particular has been a success in guiding 

the latent fingerprint discipline through tremendous change and serious challenges into a 

more robust and respected forensic science. Even earlier this year, there was much 

discussion of standardizing the structure of all SWG's to be more like SWGFAST in a hope to 

spread the successes that SWGFAST has achieved to the other groups. 

I fear that a fee-based membership in the Guidance Groups would limit the possibility of 

successfully including all stakeholders and reduce participation from many local and state 

government agencies. The creation of meaningful standards in forensic disciplines will 

require a significant commitment from the federal government to bring together these 

interested parties. Fee-based membership will eliminate some members from participation 

and may discourage implementation of developed standards. 

2. Impact of Guidance Groups

While the SWG's in general and SWGFAST in particular worked very hard to create the very 

best sets of guidelines and standards in forensics, there has only been limited success in 

seeing these standards implemented in forensic labs around the country. Part of the issue is 

that the published standards require some explanation beyond the technical text in the 

document. Some SWG members would speak at discipline-specific conferences to further 

explain the standard to the relevant community of practitioners. Still, implementation 

remains limited. 

Guidance Group members should take up a greater role in disseminating the discipline 

standards to the community. Members of the Guidance Groups should be required to meet 

yearly with local practitioners to explain the standards of the Guidance Groups and the 

reasoning behind the decisions made. Suggestions made at these meetings could also lead 

to further improvements at subsequent Guidance Group meetings. Involving the 

practitioners that have to follow the standards and that actually do the work is key to 

getting these standards adopted at more agencies. Every accredited forensic lab in the 

country (and ideally, all forensic labs) should be assigned to a representative on the 

Guidance Groups. This representative would be the first contact point for nearby labs to get 

more information about each standard. Once labs have a better understanding of the how 

and why, they may be more likely to implement Guidance Group standards. 

3. Representation of the Guidance Groups

The Guidance Groups must maintain a careful balance of interested stakeholders to remain 

effective, efficient, and relevant. The groups should be comprised mostly of experts from 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 274 of 337
Response from Eric Ray 

the relevant discipline, but must also include input from prosecutors, defense attorneys, 

judges, researchers, academics, and critics. Without these voices the standards published 

by the Guidance Groups may not be accepted in the courtroom or in the wider scientific 

community. However, filling the groups with too many non-practitioners may result in 

impractical standards that are ignored by practitioners. A carefully balanced middle ground 

must be maintained. 

I would recommend that each Guidance Group be comprised of members representing all 

interested stakeholders. At least 50% of the members should be currently practicing the 

discipline on a daily basis. The remaining members should then be filled with forensic 

laboratory managers/administrators, scholars, lawyers, and researchers that are involved 

and well-informed on the respective discipline. 

As stated, the base and majority of the group should be currently practicing. Most members 

of the Guidance Group should have to follow the developed standards when they return to 

their agencies. The SWG's were often made up of individuals who were experts in the field 

but who were not currently practicing the discipline daily. They would then sometimes write 

new guidelines and standards with unintended consequences. The exclusion decision was 

introduced into the latent print discipline in the early 2000's through SWGFAST. This change 

brought about two unintended consequences. First, practitioners would have to face a new 

type of error: the erroneous exclusion. Second, practitioners would have to learn to 

differentiate between the exclusion and inconclusive decisions. SWGFAST changed its 

guidelines without anticipating these challenges and without providing guidance on how to 

deal with them. I firmly believe that these types of issues can be avoided in the future if 

members of the Guidance Groups are mainly comprised of individuals that will have to 

follow the standards that are set forth. 

NIST should also consider creating a Stakeholder Review Board to further include interested 

parties. While the Guidance Groups would include diverse stakeholders, the Review Board 

would consist of even more interested parties including governmental bodies, universities, 

professional organizations, accrediting bodies, law, research, and the judicial and legislative 

branches. This board would review documents from each of the Guidance Groups and offer 

suggestions to further improve the standards. The Guidance Groups would have the final 

decision as to how to implement suggestions from the Review Board. This Review Board 

would ensure that a wide variety of stakeholders are represented in the process without 

having to fill each Guidance Group with too many non-practitioners. 

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups

Most of the SWG's should transition to Guidance Groups. Some groups may be able to 

combine in a natural way (e.g. Digital Evidence and Imaging Technologies), while other 

groups should not be joined together (e.g. Latent Fingerprints and Footwear). Also, NIST 

should consider eliminating any SWG's that have not had to significantly update their 

documents recently. Disciplines that have a reached a stable state may not need a Guidance 

Group, while disciplines experiencing significant change will definitely need them. 

Thank you for your time and consideration, 

Eric Ray, CLPE 

Criminalist 

Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime Lab 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 275 of 337
Response from Mark Sandercock

1. Structure of the Guidance Groups

• Given the scope and principles of the Guidance Groups outlined here, what are structural

models that could best support the Guidance Groups, taking into account the technical, policy, 

legal, and operational aspects of forensic science? 

Having a single agency (e.g. NIST) mandated to organize, promote, and fund all groups would 

provide the stability and consistency required to allow the group to concentrate on its work. 

Operational forensic scientists are often required to respond to incidents, or court appearances, 

on short notice and so may not be able to attend a scheduled group meeting. More frequent

and predictable group meetings will help alleviate this dilemma and foster greater participation 

from the operational forensic science community.

• What elements or models would facilitate the sharing of best practices and uniform

practices across the Guidance Groups?

Timely access to the work produced by each group is one of the key elements that will facilitate 

the sharing of best practices. This is best accomplished by publicly posting finished documents 

on the internet, preferably within a single website (e.g. NIST), so that practices can be shared 

easily and quickly. The publication of consensus standards is a lengthy process which not only 

impedes the timely implementation of uniform practices across operational laboratories, but it 

also delays other groups from accessing documents that may be helpful in the development of 

their guides to best practices.

• Are there public policies or private sector initiatives in other countries that have

successfully strengthened the nation’s use of forensic science by supporting the development 

and propagation of forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of 

forensic science research and measurement standards, and verifying the scientific basis exists 

for each discipline? If so, what are they? 

Yes, there are several initiatives in other countries that have lead to some strengthening of 

forensic science, most of which are collaborative efforts between nations in a geographic area. 

For example, the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) has not only strived 

to hold meetings for forensic practitioners across Europe to develop scientific guidelines and to 

share best practices, but they also have made an effort to network operational forensic 

laboratories around the world through the International Forensic Strategic Alliance. Interestingly, 

IFSA partnerships exist between Europe, Australasia, and South America, but not with North 

America. Other initiatives, such as the Senior Managers of Australian and New Zealand 

Forensic Laboratories (SMANZFL), National Institute for Forensic Science (NIFS – Australia), 

and the Asian Forensic Sciences Network (AFSN) appear to be plagued by lack of funding (as 

evidenced by the lack of up to date content on their web pages) and so their effectiveness at 

addressing the scientific needs of the forensic community appear to be limited. NIFS Australia 

and SMANZFL, for example, support a similar initiative known as Specialist Advisory Groups 

(SAGs) where discipline specific forensic science issues and needs would be discussed by 

forensic scientists, however, these types of groups have also suffered from a lack of funding in 

the past.

• What are the elements which make existing forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs)

successful? Are there examples of best practices in specific SWGs that ought to be replicated in 

Guidance Groups? If so, what are they? 

Placing related forensic disciplines together is a good model that allows networking between 

forensic scientists and the exchange of ideas and best practices. For example, physical trace 

evidence is comprised of “sub-groups” such as glass, paint, textile fibers, etc. which are all 

related to one another to some extent. While they each sub-group has separate needs and so

require their own group, they logically belong under one organizing executive. This is currently 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 276 of 337
Response from Mark Sandercock

being done with the SGWMAT group. In a similar fashion, SWGFEX logically places four 

groups (fire scene, explosion scene, fire laboratory, and explosion laboratory) under one 

executive because they share common investigations and, furthermore, adopting best practices 

at these scenes will have a direct impact on the quality of the results obtained by the laboratory. 

Again, other disciplines such as biometrics and DNA could be grouped under one organizing

executive that could be described as human identification. Furthermore, by placing related 

disciplines together, the development of a standard method by one group may have direct 

application to a related group, and so a savings in effort will be realized by different sub-groups 

working together on some projects, such as guidelines for proficiency testing. SWGs have also 

been open to, and have often encouraged, participation by forensic scientists from other 

countries, particularly Canada and Western Europe. This active promotion of international 

cooperation has been a significant benefit of the current SWG model. One glaring error of the 

current SWG funding model is that US federal employees are often prevented from accessing 

funds to attend SWG meetings which typically results in these well-trained, experienced 

forensic scientists not being able to contribute to the important work of these groups.

• Would partnership with a standards development organization (SDO) in which the standard

is issued by the SDO present any obstacle for participation by a broad range of forensic science 

stakeholders in the development of a standard? If so, why? 

I do not believe the involvement of an SDO would prevent or discourage the participation of 

stakeholders in the development of a standard. The involvement of an SDO can be a lengthy 

and time consuming process, which may delay the publication and, therefore, the adoption of a 

standard.

• Would partnership with an SDO in which the standard is issued by the SDO present any

obstacle to broad adoption of a standard? If so, why? 

From a world-wide perspective, if the SDO if perceived by forensic scientists from other 

countries as working primarily for the interests of the United States, then adoption of the 

standard outside of the USA may not occur.

• Would a fee-based membership model run through a not-for-profit organization (similar to

the National Conference of Weights and Measures) present a significant obstacle for 

participation? 

I believe that fee-based membership would be an obstacle. Input from smaller, local 

laboratories is unlikely if they are required to pay a membership fee to participate. Likewise, 

many agencies outside the US are also under severe budget restraints and so are unlikely to 

pay a membership fee to participate in a US-led initiative. A membership fee will limit the 

number of different scientific perspectives at the table, which may result in a perception that the 

guidelines and initiatives of the group do not represent those of the forensic science community 

at large.

• If the Guidance Groups followed a fee-based membership model, are there appropriatelytiered systems for fees that would prevent ‘‘pricing out’’ organizations, including individuals?

Organizations will always put their own day-to-day operational needs ahead of such initiatives 

as scientific meetings and conferences. In this world-wide climate of fiscal restraint, any 

membership fee may serve as a barrier to an organization participating.

• Other than a privatized model, are there other means to maintain a governance or

coordinating body in the long term? If possible, please give examples of existing structures and 

their positive and negative attributes. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 277 of 337
Response from Mark Sandercock

The need to “support the development and propagation of forensic science consensus 

documentary standards, monitor research and measurement standards gaps in each forensic 

discipline, and verify that a sufficient scientific basis exists for each discipline” exists around the 

world. Ideally, national governments would desire to participate in an organizational/funding 

model similar to that of Interpol, one that would strengthen forensic science across the globe by 

documenting best practices, developing databases, and fostering research.

2. Impact of Guidance Groups

In its role in administering and supporting the Guidance Groups, NIST’s aim is to improve 

discipline practices by advancing forensic science standards and techniques through a 

collaborative consensus building process with Federal, state and local community partners. 

NIST thus seeks comments about the ways in which the structure, function and operation would 

best support the Guidance Groups by being a catalyst for such improvements.

• Given that the Guidance Groups cannot mandate the adoption of standards, what can they

do to best leverage their position and encourage adoption? To what extent does membership 

and transparency impact possible adoption of guidance at the state and local level? 

Publication of guidelines and standards, whether as a NIST report in an agency journal, an 

ASTM guideline, or via another vehicle, is the best way to encourage adoption. It is very 

important that the published documents be the work of practicing forensic scientists who are 

recognized by their peers as having the knowledge, skills, and ability to conduct forensic 

examinations in a given field.

• Are there best practices or models to consider with regard to a structure that would

encourage effective communication with the scientific community to explore research gaps and 

aid in recognizing research priorities?

The model that might work best is one where there is adequate consultation. For example, 

there could be a mechanism whereby an experienced forensic scientist is embedded in each 

research project as a consultant. I say this because it occasionally happens that an academic 

researcher does not fully appreciate the rigor that is required for acceptance of a result or 

method by the court. Alternatively, an academic researcher may develop a new method that 

may work well under controlled laboratory conditions, but it cannot work in the field because the 

researcher lacked the knowledge of how real world samples present themselves to the forensic 

practitioner. It is equally important that research projects requesting funding be reviewed by 

practicing forensic scientists who can provide advice on the viability and utility of the proposal. 

Failure to consult with forensic scientists may lead to the funding of research projects that will 

not be of any benefit to the forensic community.

• How should NIST researchers engage with the Guidance Groups in support of the goal to

strengthen the nation’s use of forensic science by supporting the development and propagation 

of forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of forensic science 

research and measurement standards, and verifying the scientific basis exists for each 

discipline? 

I am not familiar enough with the skill sets and knowledge base of NIST researchers to answer 

this question.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 278 of 337
Response from Mark Sandercock

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups

Given the diverse, multi-sector set of stakeholders in forensic science, representation in 

Guidance Groups must be carefully balanced and inclusive. 

• Who are the stakeholders who should be represented on the Guidance Groups? What

steps can NIST take to ensure appropriately broad representation within the Guidance Groups? 

What does balanced representation mean and how can it be achieved? 

Given that “the proposed mission of the Guidance Groups is to support the development and 

propagation of forensic science consensus documentary standards, monitor research and

measurement standards gaps in each forensic discipline, and verify that a sufficient scientific

basis exists for each discipline” the stakeholders are limited to forensic scientists, researchers, 

and the court. Forensic scientists would include those who work privately as well as those who

work at publically funded laboratories, researchers would include scientists from both private

and publicly funded forensic laboratories, university academics, and government research 

organizations, and the court representatives should target judges because they are the “trier of 

fact.” It must be acknowledged that not every group will have representation from all 

stakeholders listed above because there simply may not be a private laboratory with sufficient 

experience in gunshot residue analysis, or a representative from a government laboratory who 

can contribute to a technical discussion on fingerprints.

• What is the best way to engage organizations playing a role in forensic science, standards

development and practice? 

By promoting to their organization the benefits of having nationally and internationally accepted 

guidelines and standards for the forensic work they are engaged in.

• How should interested parties who may not be direct participants in Guidance Groups,

engage in a meaningful way to have an impact on issues in front of the Guidance Groups?

Documents drafted by a group could be posted for a limited time (e.g. 30 days) for public 

comment, and the public should be able to sign up for an electronic notification of recently 

posted documents in any, or all, of the groups that interest them. Comments should be 

screened for appropriateness, and publically posted along with information identifying the 

individual who posted the comment. Comments that merely criticize the work of a group should 

be discouraged, or not accepted for posting at all. Constructive comments that offer alternative 

points of view, other possible solutions to a problem, or additional information on a topic should 

be encouraged and, where appropriate, responded to by the group in the same public forum.

• To what extent and in what ways must the Federal government, as well as state, local,

tribal and territorial governments be involved at the outset? 

In order for the work of the groups to be adopted across the country, it is very important that the 

federal government be involved at the outset. Many forensic scientists work in state and 

municipal forensic laboratories, and so it is important to keep all levels of government and law 

enforcement agencies apprised of the formation of these groups and how they will function.

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups

• Should all of the current forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) transition to Guidance

Groups?

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 279 of 337
Response from Mark Sandercock

To decrease administration costs and to improve the sharing of information, it would be best if 

all SWGs were brought under the administration of the same agency.

• Are there broader groupings of forensic science disciplines that could form the basis of

Guidance Groups than the current group of twenty-one SWGs? If so, what are those groupings?

For the purposes of coordinating joint meetings and fostering networking amongst scientists, 

yes, broader groups could be formed along a similar model to SWGMAT or SWGFEX. 

However, these broader groupings would only be effective for the purpose of administrating and 

coordinating the work of the sub-groups. Broader groups would not have sufficient focus to be 

effective at writing best practices, guidelines, or monitoring research projects.

• Is there a need for a crossdisciplinary functional approach (i.e. statistical analysis) and how

could the Guidance Groups be structured to best address that need? 

While I agree that there is a need to have most, if not all, groups engaged in the topic of 

statistical analysis, it may be difficult for a single “Statistical Group” to have the breatdth of 

knowledge to successfully assist such a diverse group of disciplines. For example, the statistics 

behind population genetics is very different from multivariate chemometrics used to assess the 

significance of a match for multi-element data from materials such as glass, which is different 

from drug seizure cases employing sampling statistics using the hypergeometric distribution, 

which is different again from the statistics required to pre-process (e.g. normalize) spectroscopic 

data for direct one-to-one comparisons or subsequent searching against a database of spectra. 

Access to statisticians, perhaps NIST researchers themselves, to provide guidance to each 

group on an as needed basis may be more workable.

• To what extent do Guidance Groups need to support different forensic science disciplines

differently from one another? 

It must be understood that each discipline is unique and so it has unique needs. For example, 

DNA is not transferred from individual to crime scene in the same way glass particles are 

transferred from crime scene to individual, nor are the instruments and methods used to identify 

and compare these two materials in any way similar to one another. For DNA analysis, there is 

medical and academic research conducted around the world on this molecule which can, 

hopefully, be adapted to the forensic community in the form of faster, more accurate, less 

expensive analyses. For glass analysis, the majority of the research aimed at differentiating 

one piece of glass from another has been driven almost exclusively by the forensic science 

community. So while DNA may need to focus more on transfer and persistence studies or the 

evaluation of new, automated analysis technology, glass analysis may need to focus on 

developing a database of elements in glass to better assess the significance of the evidence.

Comments submitted by: 

Mark Sandercock, PhD 

Manager, Trace Evidence Program Support 

National Centre for Forensic Services - Alberta 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 280 of 337
Response from LeeAnn Singley 

Federal'Register'Comments

LeeAnn'Singley

Page'1'of'3'

Dear'Ms.'Ballou,'

I'am'writing'to'you'in'response'to'the'request'for'comments'on'the'Federal'Register'Docket'Number'

130508459M3459M01'–'“Possible'Models'for'the'Administration'and'Support'of'DisciplineMSpecific'

Guidance'Groups'for'Forensic'Science”.'

Please'allow'me'to'introduce'myself.''My'name'is'LeeAnn'Singley'and'I'am'the'owner'of'Grayson'Singley'

Associates,'LLC'a'forensic'consulting'firm'in'Duncannon,'Pennsylvania.''Previously,'I'spent'17'years'

working'in'the'PA'State'Police'Crime'Laboratory'in'Harrisburg.''I'am'currently'a'member'of'the'Scientific'

Working'Group'on'Bloodstain'Pattern'Analysis'(SWGSTAIN)'and'have'been'since'its'inception'in'2002.''I'

chair'the'Quality'Assurance'SubMCommittee.

I'would'like'to'acknowledge'the'work'that'NIST'and'DOJ'have'put'into'the'furtherance'of'the'guidance'

groups'for'the'betterment'of'forensic'science'here'in'the'US.''What'I'would'like'to'do'in'this'

correspondence'is'speak'a'bit'about'how'the'SWG'that'I'am'involved'in'has'been'working'as'it'seems'to'

address'many'of the'topics'raised'in'the'Federal'Register.'

SWG$Makeup

SWGSTAIN'is'comprised'of'approximately'30'individuals'representing'the'US'and'foreign'entities'

(Canada,'New'Zealand,'Australia,'United'Kingdom,'the'Netherlands'and'France).''Although'historically'

the'SWG’s,'and'even'the'proposed'guidance'groups,'have'been'implemented'primarily'to'develop'best'

practice'guidelines'for'forensic'science'in'the'US,'the'work'products'of'SWG’s'have'been'“looked'to”'

and'embraced'by'the'practice'of'forensic'science'worldwide.''International'forensic'organizations'also'

have'sought'out'and'are/were'actively'engaged'in'the'review'of'our'work'product'and'therefore'the'

balance'of'both'US'and'international'involvement'as'represented'on'SWGSTAIN'is'a'valuable'one.

SWGSTAIN'is'also'comprised'of'a'unique'balance'of'members'of'law'enforcement'agencies'(federal,'

state'and'local level),'private'companies/consultants'(many'of'whom'are'retired'from'government'

agencies),'academia,'law,'and'research.''This'provides'us'a'balanced'perspective'while'moving'forward'

in'the'generation'of'best'practice'guidelines.

Membership

Although'our'byMlaws'allow'for'more'members'than'we'currently'have,'SWGSTAIN'has'kept'a'careful'

watch'on'itself'to'have'enough'members'to'be'productive'while'not'having'“too'many” to'be'counterM

productive.''It'also'allows'us'the'flexibility'to'invite'guests'to'engage'in'one'meeting'or'more'and'to'

provide'input'that'may'be'unique'to'an'issue'at'the'time.''From'past'invited'guests'and'from'those'that'

have'either'expressed'interest or'were'suggested'by'a'current'member,'SWGSTAIN'has'sought'out'new'

members'for'the'group'upon'attrition.''Potential'new'members'have'been'invited'to'a'minimum'of'2'

meetings'which'allows'SWGSTAIN'as'a'whole'to'evaluate'(so'to'speak)'the'potential'member’s'

interaction.''The'member'is'then'considered'on'their'group'interaction,'their'background'and'where'the'

need'in'SWGSTAIN'exists.''This'has'allowed'SWGSTAIN'to'continue'to'remain'productive'in'their'work'

product.''It'also'allows'us'to'maintain'continuity'from'meeting'to'meeting.''

In'direct'response'to'one'of'the'issues,'I'believe'a'“feeMbased”'model'for'a'guidance'group'would'be in'

many'senses'restrictive'to'the'pool'of'membership and'therefore'affect'its'overall'usefulness.''I'believe

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 281 of 337
Response from LeeAnn Singley 

Federal'Register'Comments

LeeAnn'Singley

Page'2'of'3'

it'is'important'that'the'funding'for'the'groups'fall'under'government'support'rather'than'from'the'

private'sector'and'that'the'support'carry'with'it'a'true'commitment for'the'long'term.''The'forensic'

community'is'hungry'for'and'has come'to'rely'upon,'the'SWG’s'work'products.''Our'recent'hiatus'

caused'by'disrupted'funding'has'undermined'the full'effort'of'the'SWG’s and'placed'questions'in'the'

minds'of'the'user'as'to'what'the'future'holds.''It'is'my'hope'moving'forward,'there'be'full'support'from'

the'government'which'would'lessen or'eliminate'the'potential'vested'interests'surrounding private'

sector'run'guidance'groups.

Research

Having'an'accessible'portal'of'identified'needs'in'research'is'a'must.''SWGSTAIN'has'a'link'to'identified'

research'needs'on'its'website.''This'research'list'was'formulated'by'the'Research'Subcommittee'and'

reviewed and'commented'on'by'the'entire'SWG'membership.''It'has'proven'to'be'successful'since'

results'of'academic'research'recently'presented'at'the'International'Association'of'Bloodstain'Pattern'

Analysts'(IABPA)'conference'had'its'beginnings'from'this'list'of'needs.''Our'current'chair,'Mr.'Mike'Illes,'

although'retired'from'the'Ontario'Provincial'Police,'is'employed'in'academia'at'Trent'University'in'

Ontario'and'has'been'quite'accessible'to'requests'for'research'guidance.

Adoption$of$Standards

Recognizing'that'currently,'the'SWG’s'have'no'authority'to'require'adoption'of'the'guidance'documents,'

(nor'would'the proposed'guidance'groups'as'the'federal'register'states),'the'manner'in'which'guidelines'

generated'by'SWGTAIN'are'adopted'appears'to'be'in'many'cases'driven'by'the'courts.''Public'access'to'

SWGSTAIN'guidelines'by'both'defense'and'prosecuting'attorneys'and'judges'has'raised'the'awareness'

level'of'“what'is'expected” of'a'bloodstain'pattern'analyst'with'regard'to'training,'quality'assurance,'etc.'

M'and'the'witness'is'being'so'questioned.

Moving'forward,'acceptance'and'implementation'of'accrediting'organizations'into'their'standards'will'

facilitate'the'adoption'of'guidance'group'work'products.''Endorsement'by'national'and'international'

forensic'organizations'will'also'provide'some'accountability'with'regard'to'adoption'by'individual'

agencies.

Scope$of$Guidance$Groups/$Dissemination$of$Information

While'SWGSTAIN'has'an'active'website'and'an'open'and'working'communication'with'our'stakeholders,'

I'believe'having'a'“one'stop'shop”'for'all'guidance'groups'might'be'beneficial.''Having'one'website'

where'all'stakeholders'could'gain'information'(regardless'of'forensic'discipline)'with'regard'to'finalized'

work'product,'public'comment'documents,'communication'with'members,'etc.,'would'make'the'

exchange'of'information'more'effective'–'even'between'the'SWG’s'themselves.''Should'all'guidance'

groups'fall'under'one'support “umbrella”, so'to'speak,'this'goal'may'be'reached'more'successfully.'

That'being'said,'although'I'can’t'address'each'of'the'current'SWG’S,'my'suggestion'would'be'to'keep'

them'separate while'underneath'that'“umbrella”.''While'on'the'surface'it'might'seem'beneficial,'for'

instance,'that'all'“pattern'identification”'SWG’s'join'together,'my'opinion'is'that'would'be'rather

counterMproductive.''Recognizing'that'although'we'may'be'addressing'similar'issues,'the'manner'in'

which'we'address'them'may'be'quite'different.''My'personal'experience'in'SWGSTAIN'has'seen'many'a'

“lively”'discussion'driven'by'our'different'backgrounds'while'all'being'bloodstain'pattern'analysts.'''Add'

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 282 of 337
Response from LeeAnn Singley 

Federal'Register'Comments

LeeAnn'Singley

Page'3'of'3'

in'the'vested'interests'of'a'completely'different'forensic'discipline'(e.g.,'latent'prints,'document'

examination,'etc.)'and'the'expediency'and'perhaps'even'the'“bar”'at'which'the'standard'is'set'might'be'

lowered'in'order'to'meet'the'needs'of'all.

Finally,'SWGSTAIN'has'reached'out'to'and'now'enjoys'a'good'working'relationship'with'the'professional'

organizations'whose'membership'rosters'represent'our'major'stakeholders.''In'particular, each'year the'

IABPA'has'allotted'time'for'updates'from'SWGSTAIN'at'its'annual'conference'and'has'formed'a'

SWGSTAIN document'review'committee'to'review'all'documents'generated'and'released'for'public'

comment.''Recognizing'the'need'for'standards'in'the'discipline,'the'IABPA'has'also'endorsed'the'

published'SWGSTAIN'terminology'–'further'evidence'the'entities'are'working'together'for'the'

betterment'of'the'discipline.

In'closing,'I'greatly'appreciate'your'consideration'of'the'comments'put'forth'in'the'correspondence.''

Please'feel'free'to'contact'me'should'you'have'any'questions'regarding'my'thoughts.'''My'contact'

information'is'listed'below.

Thank'you'for'your'time.

Respectfully'submitted,

LeeAnn!Singley

Grayson'Singley'Associates,'LLC

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 283 of 337
Response from Andy Smith 

Hello Susan, 

In reference to the NIST call for information, SWGGUN has decided not to put together a full 

formal response. We felt that the time spent with John Paul Jones at our November 2011 

meeting in Columbus as well as verbally discussing thoughts and ideas (representative of what 

SWGGUN would want) at the SWG Chair meeting in June as well as other various responses 

SWGGUN has provided for other requests for information that we have verbalized what we 

would like to see as to the new management. Further, I thought a group response from all the 

SWGs (given that we are now going to be managed by the same agency) would carry more 

weight than a multitude of individual responses. However, the other SWG chairs or a majority 

of them did not feel this was the appropriate route so they opted to provide individual responses. 

I do not want you to think that SWGGUN is not interested or does not have ay concern about the 

new management that will soon be transitioned into. Obviously we do. We fully understand that 

things are going to change and we are okay with that. We have already prepared a “ready to go” 

bylaws that is unified based on the IWG committees format for unified bylaws. We have also 

taken into account other considerations of these IWG group, which appear to be a most probable 

starting point for re-engineering the SWG office. So please understand that SWGGUN is very 

excited about the upcoming changes as well as very concerned about the direction that this 

management takes. 

Our primary concerns are to reduce any overly tasking administrative duties from the 

SWGs. We feel that having a program office to handle dissemination of materials, note taking 

assistance, research and possibly legal insight would be most beneficial. I find that a lot of time 

SWGGUN spends is on these tasks that take away from the purpose of our meeting. We also 

need actual support to allow us to meet at least twice a year for having in person meetings. I 

know this is a concern of practically all the SWGs, but is obviously an important one. It cannot 

be understated how much work gets done with a group is able to sit face to face versus trying to 

accomplish the same tasks via email or video chat or conference call. They just cannot 

compare. I also think website management should be handled by a single entity that operates 

and functions for all the SWGs. This will not only provide for uniformity, but also will keep 

individual members from paying out of pocket to host the websites. 

Of the responses that I have been made aware of and seen, I will say that SWGGUN would 

support (with very little exception) the response put forward by the SWG DE groups. I thought 

that although they were speaking on behalf of their own SWGs it was well written and would 

parlay well as a template for all SWGs and the management of said SWGs. Please accept this 

endorsement of the SWG DE response as SWGGUN is amenable to their outline. 

To be perfectly honest, I am just ready for something to happen. It is now the end of November 

and we are still in a major black hole as to where we are going how we are going to be managed, 

when or how we will have meetings and the direction that we will be tasked with once 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 284 of 337
Response from Andy Smith 

everything has settled. I am excited for the future that lies ahead as I think it can provide much 

needed support for SWGGUN guideline development and implementation. 

I thank you for your time and consideration and again, my apologies for being a little delayed in 

getting this information to you. 

Thanks, 

Andy Smith 

Chair - SWGGUN

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 285 of 337
Response from Paul F. Souza 

Dear%Susan%Ballou:

I%am%the%senior%practitioner%of%the%Plymouth%County%Sheriff’s%Department%an%agency%that%processes%over%

10,000%criminal%and%civil%cases%a%year.%My%duties%include%overseeing%forensic%analysis%of%physical%

evidence,%latent%comparison,%equipment%calibration,%AFIS%administration,%DNA%laboratory%submission,%

courtroom%testimony,%policy%development,%instruction,%and%training.%%We%utilize%ACEJV%methodology%and%

generally%follow%guidelines%set%forth%by%ASCLD,%ISO%and%SWGFAST.%In%addition,%I%have%served%as%President%

of%the%International%Association%for%Identification%–%New%England%Division%and%Chairperson%of%the%Law%

and%Legislative%Committee.%I%have%participated%in%National%and%International%surveys,%and%studies%for%the%

improvement%of%forensic%science.%I%have%reviewed%the%NAS%report%and%have%testified%in%court%as%an%expert%

witness%to%Daubert%and%Frye%standards.

In%regards%to%the%“notice%of%inquiry”%group%model%proposal,%first%and%foremost%it%must%be%of%benefit%to%

the%practitioner’s.%That%being%said%to%be%effective%the%groups%composition%must%contain%a%majority%of%

qualified%practitioners.%In%my%particular%field%of%fingerprint%identification%it%would%be%beneficial%if%a%group%

could%find%out%if%two%fingerprints%from%different%fingers%could%ever%be%the%same.%I%have%researched%

thousands%of%fingerprints%and%have%always%discovered%them%to%be%unique.%%%

%%

My%unique%experiences,%knowledge,%and%passion%would%hopefully%be%of%value%to%the%NIST.%I%do%care%about%

the%future%of%our%profession%and%look%forward%to%serving%as%a%part%of%the%proposed%new%NIST%guidance%

group(s).%I%would%be%able%to%attend%meetings%anywhere%and%at%any%time%the%proposed%guidance%groups%

so%desired.

Should%you%require%any%additional%information,%please%contact%me%anytime.%Thank%you%for%your%

consideration.

Respectfully%submitted,

Paul%Souza

PAUL%F.%SOUZA,%CLPE

Senior%Forensic%Analyst

Bureau%of%Criminal%Investigation

Deputy

Plymouth%County%(MA)%Sheriff’s%Department%

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 286 of 337
Response from Marianne Stam 

Perspective*on*NIST’s*Proposed*Guidance*Groups

Marianne*Stam*DOJ*CA,*criminalist*supervisor

Comments:*

It!appears!that!NIST!is!proposing!to!replace!the!Scientific!Working!Groups!(SWGs)!with!‘Guidance!Groups’;!

however,!for!the!past!two!to!three!years,!the!Chairs!of!the!various!SWGs!have!been!meeting!to!develop!protocols!

that!cover!the!procedures!for!membership,!including!what!the!membership!makeEup!should!be!(e.g.!%!from!the!

academic,!legal,!and!practicing!forensic!scientist!communities).!!

Why!is!NIST!now!asking!for!public!input!for!‘Guidance!Groups’?!!The!model!that!the!SWG!Chairs!have!developed!

for!membership!is!a!good!one.!!Why!change!the!SWG!name!from!Scientific!Working!Group!to!‘Guidance!Groups’?!!!!!

Structure!of!the!‘Guidance!Groups’:!

A. Structural!Models:

The!structural!model!developed!at!the!SWG!Chair!meetings!over!the!past!two!to!three!years!should!be!

adopted.!!It!covers!the!membership!content,!how!interested!parties!would!apply!for!membership,!and!

how!members!would!be!selected.!!The!membership!should!be!predominantly!composed!of!practicing!

forensic!scientists,!followed!by!forensic!scientists!in!academics!with!limited!participation!(on!an!as!needed!

basis) of!members!of!the!legal!community.

Re:!Other!country!models:!!See!ENSFI!Website:!!The!European!Network!of!Forensic!!Science!Institutes:

http://www.enfsi.eu/!!

Partnership!with!SDOs:!!If!it!is!a!partnership!such!as!exists!with!ASTM!wherein!the!‘Guidance!Group’!

develops!the!guidelines!and!then!submits!them!to!ASTM!for!publication!–!then!this!would!be!a!good!

model.!!This!is!the!method!currently!used!by!SWGMAT:!!The Scientific!Working!Group!for!Materials!

Analysis.

Fee!Based!Membership:!!This!would!not!only!present!a!significant!obstacle!for!participation;!but!it!would!

also!appear!elitist.!!Maintaining!long!term!governance!or!a!coordinating!body!can!be!accomplished!much!

like!AAFS!or!regional!forensic!science!organizations!!–!Have!a!Board!with!members!elected!from!the!

forensic!science!community.

Impact!of!‘Guidance!Groups’:

If!the!Guidance!Groups!cannot!mandate!the!adoption!of!‘standards’,!then!it!won’t!be!any!more!effective!than!the!

SWG!groups!have!been;!which!isn’t!to!say!that!the!current!SWG!groups!have!not!been!effective.!!It!would!be!

disastrous!to!the!forensic!science!profession!to!have!standards!that!are!so!restrictive!that!it!removes!the!ability!of!

the!scientist!to!think!outside!the!box!–!especially!since!the!profession!often!deals!with!unpredictable!evidence.

What!is!needed!more!than!best!practices!is!research!that!covers!the!needs!identified!in!the!NAS!report.!!This!

should!be!one!of!the!primary!functions!of!the!‘Guidance!Groups’.

As!with!any!profession,!the!membership!content!and!transparency!of!the!groups!is!vital!to!being!respected!

enough!by!practicing!forensic!scientists!to!even!be!considered!for!adoption.!!!

Representation!in!the!Guidance!Groups:

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 287 of 337
Response from Marianne Stam 

Limit!the!legal!community!participationE!they!should!only!be!consulted!on!an!asEneeded!basis,!if!at!all.! The!legal!

community!should!not!be allowed!to!dictate!forensic!science.!!

The!profession!is!forensic!science!and!the!professionals!are!forensic!scientists.!!Therefore,!the!members of!those!

on!the!committees!or the!groups!who!are!to!decide!the!future!of!forensic!science!should!be!practicing forensic!

scientists.!!

Scope!of!the!Guidance!Groups:

The!SWGs should!be!retained!in!light!of!the!suggestion!below:

E There!could!be two!branches!within!a!larger!group!(as!yet!unEnamed)!as!follows:

!!!!!!!!!E!!SWGs (the!practitioners):!!To!write!consensus!guideline!documents

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!E!‘Guidance!Groups’ (the!researchers):!!To!explore!and!guide!research!needs,!including!identifying!the

best!institutions/academic!groups!to!carry!out!the!research.

These!groups!could!be!composed!of!some!of!the!same!members;!with!the!‘Guidance!Groups’ also!including!more!

academics!who!would!work!with!the!other!members!to!help!determine!and!guide!the!research!that!is!needed.!!

The!major!need!in!forensic!science!today!is!research!on!areas!that!were!highlighted!in!the!NAS!Report.!!Practicing!

forensic!scientists!do!not!have!the!time;!nor!do!their!agencies!have!the!resources!to!do!research!in!these!areas.!!

Therefore,!the!above!model may!be!one!way!in!which!the!research!needs are!identified!and!met!while!producing!

best!practices!at!the!same!time.!!

There!is!definitely!a!need!for!crossEdisciplinary approaches!and!one!way!to!structure!a!group!to!meet!such!needs!

is!suggested!above!(e.g.!SWGs!+!Guidance!Groups!as!defined above).

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 288 of 337
Response from Stephanie Stoiloff of Miami-Dade Police Department 

Miami-Dade Police Department, Forensic Services Bureau, Guidance Group Comments 

1"

1. Structure of the Guidance Groups

• Given the scope and principles of the Guidance Groups (GG) one of the structural models

that could best support the GGs is as follows:

o Each GG should have a core group of 15-25 participants, depending on the

forensic discipline

! The core group is responsible for reporting GG business to the NIST 

representative(s) 

! Core Group membership: 

! Practitioner: This position must be clearly defined as a current 

case working analyst/examiner (which excludes individuals retired 

from the laboratory who are no longer reporting casework results). 

! At least 50% of the Core Group should be practitioners 

from public crime laboratories 

! Federal/State/Local laboratories should be represented 

! Geographical representation 

! The practitioners should be representative of Federal, state 

and local labs and represent all sizes of jurisdictions. 

! Statistician: This individual must be knowledgeable and currently 

using the skill set associated with this role. 

! Researcher: This position must be clearly defined as an individual 

who is directly involved in the research pertinent to the GG’s 

objectives (this would include NIST researchers). If there has been 

a grant awarded to a researcher to conduct research directly 

associated with a GG’s goals and objectives, they should be 

considered as an Invited Guest for the specific Working Group. 

! Academician: This position is an individual who has a position at 

a college or university and has the essential skill sets necessary to 

contribute to a GG’s goals and objectives. This individual may 

also be a researcher. 

! Quality Assurance Manager: An individual who spends at 

minimum 50% of their time performing QA related tasks. The QA 

Manager provides accreditation support for the disciplines 

including compliance with ISO and Supplemental standards. 

! The Core Group members have voting privileges 

! The Core Group should NOT allow membership from: 

! Private vendors, although there may be instances where an 

individual from a private vendor may be an Invited Guest 

! Retired practitioners such as Crime Laboratory Directors 

unless the individual is still maintaining proficiency in their 

discipline. 

! Center of Excellence staff who may have vendor relationships 

o Invited Guests

! Should be considered for relevant agenda-specific presentations 

! Potential for membership in GG Working Groups and ad hoc groups 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 289 of 337
Response from Stephanie Stoiloff of Miami-Dade Police Department 

Miami-Dade Police Department, Forensic Services Bureau, Guidance Group Comments 

2"

o Anticipated GG agenda template:

! Meeting 

! Day 1: 

! Travel, when necessary could also serve as additional 

meeting time for Working/Ad Hoc Groups 

! Not open to the public 

! Day 2: 

! Invited Guest presentations, “old business” as appropriate 

! Allow timed public comment with prior approval for 

speaker(s) 

! Open to the public (this might logistically be a problem for 

core meeting planners.) I would suggest that only the 4th

day or the 2nd day be open to the public. 

! Submitted “written” public comments could be addressed 

when received – any day. 

! Day 3: Working Group/Ad Hoc Group Break-out 

! Conduct work-product business 

! Not open to the public 

! Day 4: 

! Working/Ad Hoc Groups present update reports to the Core 

Group 

! Open to the public (last day only or day 2 only) 

! Close-out before 1:00pm 

• Options for the sharing of best practices and uniform practices across all of the Guidance

Groups:

o Mandates

! Each GG should have a Charter with by-laws including but not limited to: 

! Term Limits for Chairs, Vice-Chairs, Secretary positions 

! Individuals in these positions are not disqualified from 

becoming a member of the general Core Group once term 

limit expires 

! Robert’s Rules of Order should be implemented for GG control 

! Core Membership policy 

! Invited Guest policy 

! Mandated regular meeting schedules to include a minimum of 

twice a year in-person meetings. GGs should also have the ability 

to telecommunicate (email, message boards, Skype, etc.) so that 

research/work (preparation/collaboration) can be accomplished 

outside of the in-person meetings. 

! Transparency policy 

! Location of meetings 

! Budget for meetings 

! Charter amendment policy 

! Agendas available prior to meetings 

o Site-specific website in which all GGs post information

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 290 of 337
Response from Stephanie Stoiloff of Miami-Dade Police Department 

Miami-Dade Police Department, Forensic Services Bureau, Guidance Group Comments 

3"

! GG Member information 

! GG Working Groups/Ad Hoc group member information 

! Items requesting public comment (not pre-work product) 

! GG specific public or laboratory-specific surveys 

! Agendas with pertinent date(s) 

! Application to give public comment at a meeting 

! FAQ site for each GG 

• Successful forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) have the following attributes

which may be drawn upon for the formation of the GGs: 

o A Charter

o Enforceable standards

o Definitive timelines for Working Group/Ad Hoc Group tasks

o Relationships with academicians, researchers, statisticians and forensic

laboratories that are not represented on the SWGs.

• Best practices may be found in several current SWGs that may be drawn upon for the

GGs. Using DNA as an example, SWGDAM has

o All of the attributes delineated above

o A public website with all pertinent documents published

o A website is updated and maintained

o Agendas that are available to the public

o A published mission statement

SWGDAM also encourages public comment for ensuing standards or recommendations 

and SWGDE has a section of their website requesting public comment on its new or 

revised documents. 

• Regarding a potential partnership with a standards development organization (SDO) in

which the standard is issued by the SDO, these standards are usually consensus standards 

and not necessarily forensic discipline-specific. In addition, the standard may be more 

practical than scientific. However, the SDO may offer expertise in the design and 

development of a standard which would benefit the GG. 

• A GG fee-based membership model run through a not-for-profit organization may not

present a significant obstacle for participation but there are concerns: 

o Laboratories who can afford the membership may not be the best practitioner

representatives. 

o Non-forensic members may not be able to afford membership and it would be

difficult to complete the membership composite requirements. 

o A tiered fee-based system does not seem feasible.

• Long term governance, defined as administration and coordination of the GGs by a

privatized model, does not seem feasible and may have the same issues as a not-forprofit. This is not a trivial issue as the credibility or generation of the GG’s work product

could be affected by governance by a private entity, for example, if membership dues

were increased or if there were connections to vendors by the private vendor.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 291 of 337
Response from Stephanie Stoiloff of Miami-Dade Police Department 

Miami-Dade Police Department, Forensic Services Bureau, Guidance Group Comments 

4"

2. Impact of Guidance Groups

• The Guidance Groups cannot mandate the adoption of standards but they can request

accreditation bodies such as ASCLD-LAB, FQS and A2LA to adopt the standards in a

supplemental to the ISO standards.

o NOTE: Without membership and transparency, it would be very difficult to adopt

the standards at the state and local level. The following are considerations

regarding the adoption of GG standards:

! May withhold federal grant monies if the State and Local levels do not 

comply 

! Will not have access to federal databases 

! Courts may not accept testimony 

! Accreditation may be withheld 

• The GGs should engage with professional organizations such as AAFS, IAI, AFTE,

SOFT and NAME to coordinate and consolidate potential policies, standards and 

research opportunities. 

• GGs may positively impact the certification process by forging a relationship with

certification bodies to provide relevant questions. 

• NIST researchers should engage with the GGs to support the goal to strengthen the

nation’s use of forensic science by supporting the development and propagation of 

forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of forensic science 

research and measurement standards, and verifying the scientific basis exists for each 

discipline. NIST researchers can interact as Core Group Members (see Structure of the 

Guidance Groups above) or Invited Guests. 

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups

• The stakeholders are described above in Core Groups and Invited Guests.

o NIST should be certain that the right practitioners are part of the GGs.

! Longevity should not be a consideration 

o Balanced representation means that all of the criteria necessary to design and

generate standards and policies are addressed by subject matter experts who are 

active members of the GGs.

• Engaging organizations to play a role in forensic science, standards development and

practice will occur by allowing public comment, invited lectureships and GG Working 

Group/Ad Hoc Group participation. 

• There should be an application and vetting process in place for individuals interested in

invited lectureships or being an Invited Guest member in the Working Groups/Ad Hoc 

Groups. 

• The Federal government must be able to appropriately fund all activities associated with

the GGs. 

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups

• All Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) should transition to Guidance Groups

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 292 of 337
Response from Stephanie Stoiloff of Miami-Dade Police Department 

Miami-Dade Police Department, Forensic Services Bureau, Guidance Group Comments 

5"

• It may be advantageous for several groups to be combined:

o DNA, Wildlife Forensic Analysis

o Medico-Legal Death Investigation, Disaster Victim Identification

o Facial Recognition and Imaging Technology

o Geological and Trace Evidence

• There should be a cross-disciplinary functional approach (i.e. statistical analysis) for the

GGs in order to share common issues. For example, Guidance Groups should share

methodologies for statistical analysis such as uncertainty of measurement and

documenting regarding traceability compliance.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 293 of 337
Response from Joel Sutton 

Thank	you	for	the	opportunity	to	weigh	in.	 We	have	been	closely	monitoring	the	developments	of	the	

National	Commission	on	Forensic	Science,	both	as	a	DOD	federal	crime	laboratory	and	as	an		

organization	with	current	membership	on	the	SWGs.	 We agree	like	most	everyone	that	changes	are	

needed and	certainly	the	recommendations	from	the	NAS	report	and	others	make	a	sound	argument	for	

improving	current	practices	within	the	forensic	community.		Our	comments based	on	the	NIST	provided	

questions/topics	are	found	below.

1. Structure	of	the	Guidance	Groups- in	terms	of	a	model,	the	vast	majority	of	forensic

laboratories already	work	under	or	are	moving	towards	standard	practices	and	procedures	and

these	of	course	are	the	accreditation	requirements	based	on	ASCLD-LAB	or	FQS	International

ISO	17025	standards.		We	would	first	encourage	that	the	first	recommendation	from	these

guidance groups	would	be	to	require	that	all	laboratories	(government	and	private)	who

conduct	forensic	testing	be	accredited and	for	consistency	comply	with	the	same	standards	(i.e.

ISO	17025).	 If	this	were	the	case,	then	standardizing	the	suggested	elements	(i.e. technical,

policy,	legal,	and	operational	aspects	of	forensic	science)	across	laboratories	would	already	be	in

place and	the	framework	established.	 The	next	step	would	then	be	for	these	guidance groups	to

simply	cross-reference	these	accreditation	standards	and	supplement	with discipline-specific

guidance	where	needed	or	if	not	addressed	by	the	accreditation	standards.	 In	other	words,	we

do	not	see	a	need	with instituting	new	best	practices	or	policies	(i.e.	SDO	or	private	sector

initiatives)	which	may	confuse,	conflict,	or	be	redundant	with	the	current	accreditation

standards	already	in	place.		Instead,	the	focus	of	these	guidance groups	should	be	to	standardize

laboratory	testing	based	on	currently	accepted	forensic	accreditation	requirements.

2. Impact	of	the	Guidance	Groups	–	this	is	the	most	critical	part	of	making	this	a	success	in	our

view.		The	issue	with	the	SWGs	at	the	moment	is	that	most	feel	they issue	guidance more	as

recommendations	and	as	such laboratories are	not	required to	comply.	 This	has	caused	many	of

the	gaps	we	see today.		The	best approach	in our	view	in	enforcing	the	standards	coming	from

these	guidance groups	is	to	somehow	tie	them	back into	the	accreditation	process.	 Perhaps	an

audit	document	could	be	created	from	each guidance group	for	their	particular	discipline	that

could	then	be	used and	applied	by	auditors	as	part	of	the	accreditation	process.	 This	document

could	supplement	the	laboratory	accreditation	process	in	much	the	same	way	as	the	FBI	QAS

audit	document	does	currently	for	DNA	testing.	 In	this	way	all	forensic	laboratories	would	be

more	compelled to	comply.

3. Representation	in	the	Guidance	Groups	–	these	groups	need	to	model	the	current	SWG

structure	-	representation	from	current	local,	state,	and	federal	(DOD	and	DOJ)	crime	laboratory

practitioners	in	addition	to	NIST. We appreciate	and	understand	the	current	role	of	NIST	and

other	researchers	in	the	private	sector	in	developing	methods	for	standardization	and	validating

new	technology	and	methodology	to	advance	forensic	science	here	in	the	US,	but	they	do	not

routinely	perform	analytical	examinations	in	casework	nor	testify	to	those	results	in	a	court	of

law.		That	particular	expertise	is	what	crime	lab	practitioners	bring	to	the	table.	 As	long	as	there

is	sufficient	representation	from	current	crime	lab	practitioners	with	these	groups,	we	feel	that

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 294 of 337
Response from Joel Sutton 

When	necessary,	representation	from	the	legal	community	(i.e.	prosecutors	and	defense	

attorneys)	should	be	invited	to weigh	in	or	review	certain	guidance	as	it	relates	to	their			

expertise	(i.e.	case	law,	legal	precedence).	 The	legal	community	is	adversarial	by	nature,	so	their	

attendance should	be	somewhat	limited	with	these	groups,	so	more	open and	candid		

discussions	can	be	held	with	the	scientists	on	any	underlying	issues	or	concerns.	

The	NIST	guidance	groups	should	also	be	appointed	from	nominations	submitted	by	the	forensic	

community,	and	voluntarily	be	a	member	for	a	limited	time,	so	that	other	individuals	in	the	

forensic	community have	opportunities to	serve.	 Like	the	SWGs,	there	should	also	be	invited	

guests	to	these	meetings	who	could	certainly	weigh	in	and	give input	to	any	guidance	as	needed	

to	ensure	sufficient	representation	and	perspective. We	would	also	recommend	that	any	

adopted	policies	or	practices	issued	from	these guidance groups	be	available	to	all	forensic	

laboratories	(i.e.	government	or	private)	for	public	review and	comment	for	a	period	of	time	

prior	to	formally	submitting	to	the	Commission.	This	would	alleviate	any	concerns	of	gaining	

sufficient	peer	review.

4. Scope	of	the	Guidance	Groups	–	Disbanding	the	SWGs	in	our	view	should	be	in	name	only,	since

the	role	of	the	guidance	groups	should	be	synonymous	with	the	SWGs.	There	may	certainly	be	a

need	for	guidance	groups	to	support	each	other	on	occasion,	and	this	could	be	accomplished	by

forming	an	‘ad-hoc’	or	special	committee	with	members	from	the	different	groups	discussing

these	issues	as	needed.		This	has	certainly	worked well	with	the	SWGs	and	could	be	used	on	an

as-needed basis.

Thank	you	again	for	your	attention	to	this	matter.

DNA	Casework	Branch

United	States	Army	Criminal	Investigation	Laboratory

be accomplished and any

recommendations from these groups	

well-received.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 295 of 337
Response from Andrew T. Szymanski

Comments to Possible Models for the Administration and Support of DisciplineSpecific Guidance Groups for Forensic Science

1. Structure of Guidance Groups:

• Given the scope and principles of the Guidance Groups outlined here, what are structural models

that could best support the Guidance Groups, taking into account the technical, policy, legal, and

operational aspects of forensic science?

A model based on the current practice of the SWG groups that support the collaboration

of qualified forensic scientists that volunteer their time. The model would start at the top

with a lead Guidance Group that oversees the individual forensic discpline Guidance

Groups under it. The lead Guidance Group would provide a standardized guidance

roadmap for the other groups in the development of professional forensic science

standards.

• What elements or models would facilitate the sharing of best practices and uniform practices

across the Guidance Groups?

The lead Guidance Group that oversees the other discipline groups should standardize/

model procedures for the individual standards developing groups to follow. The lead

Guidance Group would provide guidance for the discipline specific groups to follow when

developing their written standards. Regardless of discipline/ Guidance Group, forensic

scientists are in this together, should follow and share the same standards development

protocols and procedures under the lead Guidance Group umbrella.

• Are there public policies or private sector initiatives in other countries that have successfully

strengthened the nation's use of forensic science by supporting the development and propagation

of forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of forensic science

research and measurement standards, and verifying the scientific basis exists for each discipline?

If so, what are they?

Not able to comment. No knowledge of public policies from other countries.

• What are the elements which make existing forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs)

successful? Are there examples of best practices in specific SWGs that ought to be replicated in

Guidance Groups? If so, what are they?

Existing SWGs are successful because of the people who volunteer and have dedicated

agency support to set the bar high in their respective forensic science disciplines.

Funding is another element that supports the volunteering forensic scientists to meet

with their SWG groups to develop standards. The elements of a successful SWG group

are the in-person interaction of the dedicated forensic scientist SWG members who are

brought together to see that standards are developed for the advancement of forensic

science.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 296 of 337
Response from Andrew T. Szymanski 

There are best practices that currently work in the SWG groups that can be replicated in 

Guidance Groups. The SWGDOC group, for example, would meet at a reasonable hotel 

for a week, two times a year. The chair of SWGDOC would break down the attending 

meeting members to workable sub-groups. Each sub-group would have a presiding 

officer. The sub-group would be assigned a specific task of writing and addressing 

comments regarding the specific standards in the development process. At the end of 

the week, there would be a meeting of SWGDOC members to review, comment, vote, 

etc. If a draft standard is deemed acceptable to the SWGDOC membership, then the 

draft standard would be made available for public comment via the SWGDOC website. 

The practice of working in smaller sub-groups has worked well for productive SWGDOC

meetings. 

• Would partnership with a standards development organization (SDO) in which the standard is

issued by the SDO present any obstacle for participation by a broad range of forensics science

stakeholders in the development of a standard? If so, why?

Yes.

To partner with a Standards Development Organization (SDO) usually will have an

added cost. Forensic science standards must be transparent without having to pay for a

standard. When it comes to membership, SDOs usually have open membership.

SWGs have membership requirements and the ability to self-publish quality standards

without a fee.

• Would partnership with an SDO in which the standard is issued by the SDO present any obstacle

to broad adoption of a standard? If so, why?

As stated above, a SDO is usually a model with added development costs to develop 

standards. This would be an obstacle for the SWG groups. SWGs are made up of 

dedicated forensic Scientist volunteers to develop forensic science standards with

transparency. Currently, there are SWG groups that self publish standards without the 

partnership of a SDO that are available to user agencies at no cost. 

• Would a fee-based membership model run through a not-for-profit organization (similar to the

National Conference of Weights and Measures) present a significant obstacle for participation?

Not sure. This could work if the fees are reasonable and have appropriate membership

requirements.

• If the Guidance Groups followed a fee-based membership model, are there appropriately-tiered

systems for fees that would prevent “pricing out” organizations, including individuals?

Not able to comment.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 297 of 337
Response from Andrew T. Szymanski 

• Other than a privatized model, are there other means to maintain a governance or coordinating

body in the long term? If possible, please give examples of existing structures and their positive

and negative attributes.

The current structure and means of the current SWGs are the forensic scientists who 

volunteer their time and service for a very worthy cause. As previously described, the 

SWGDOC meetings have been productive. Other SWG groups are self publishing their 

standards. If there is a negative with the current SWG groups setup, is that there is a 

lack of standardization within all the SWG groups. All the SWG groups should follow a 

similar template from a lead SWG overseer group that has standardized bylaws, 

standards writing criteria, etc. 

2. Impact of Guidance Groups:

• Given that the Guidance Groups cannot mandate the adoption of standards, what can they do to

best leverage their position and encourage adoption? To what extent does membership and

transparency impact possible adoption of guidance at the state and local level?

It is very important that Guidance Groups are transparent with the standards

development process. Guidance Group members must communicate the standards

development process with their discipline specific organizations within the forensic

science community. The more the overall forensic community is aware of the standards

development process, the better position of standards acceptance.

Both membership and transparency are very important in the standards development

process. To make an impact, the Guidance Groups must take the lead and guide the

rest of the forensic science community in setting the bar high for the development of

standards.

• Are there best practices or models to consider with regard to a structure that would encourage

effective communication with the scientific community to explore research gaps and aid in

recognizing research priorities?

The recent NIST sponsored two-day conference/ webcast on “Measurement Science

and Standards in Forensic Handwriting Analysis” was a meeting that explored the state

of Questioned Document Examination and current research in the field. The structure of

this conference may be an effective model and a means to communicate with the

forensic disciplines in the community.

• How should NIST researchers engage with the Guidance Groups in support of the goal to

strengthen the nation's use of forensic science by supporting the development and propagation of

forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of forensic science research

and measurement standards, and verifying the scientific basis exists for each discipline?

NIST researchers should be part of the Guidance Groups and participate in the

meetings. Having a NIST researcher included would provide valuable resource input for

the Guidance Groups and give a NIST perspective to each group. Qualified forensic

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 298 of 337
Response from Andrew T. Szymanski 

scientist volunteers and NIST researchers working together in the development of 

documentary standards would be a benefit to the standards development process.

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups:

• Who are the stakeholders who should be represented on the Guidance Groups? What steps can

NIST take to ensure appropriately broad representation within the Guidance Groups? What does

balanced representation mean and how can it be achieved?

The Guidance Groups should be represented by the frontline stakeholders (Federal,

State and Local forensic scientists) that are currently practicing in their respective

forensic disciplines. These stakeholders must be fully trained competent forensic

scientists and must meet the membership requirements to participate in the Guidance

Groups. The Guidance Groups must be equipped with qualified members that will be

dedicated to the standards development process. As previously mentioned, NIST

should be represented and participate with the Guidance Groups as well.

NIST can ensure that representation within Guidance Groups is a balance of

stakeholders from federal, state, and local levels and from all regions of the country.

The membership for the respective Guidance Groups must meet membership

requirements.

Balanced representatives within Guidance Groups would be those members from

Federal, State, and Local levels from all regions of the country. Effective communication

can help achieve balanced Guidance Groups.

• What is the best way to engage organizations playing a role in forensic science, standards

development and practice?

Communication is very important in providing information for the forensic science

community and organizations. Forensic science organizations and forensic scientists

will take notice when it is communicated that a mechanism is in place for the standards

development process.

• How should interested parties who may not be direct participants in Guidance Groups, engage in

a meaningful way to have an impact on issues in front of the Guidance Groups?

With transparency, interested parties can follow along and participate by commenting on

draft standards. The draft standards are accessible on the SWG/ Guidance Group

websites. Communication through email can facilitate participation.

• To what extent and in what ways must the Federal government, as well as state, local, tribal and

territorial governments be involved at the outset?

Being supportive of the goals of the Guidance Groups is very important for the standards

development process to work. Government agencies should support their forensic

scientists to be active in the standards development process by encouraging

membership. Or, if unable to be a member, to stay involved as an interested party in the

process.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 299 of 337
Response from Andrew T. Szymanski 

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups:

• Should all of the current forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) transition to Guidance

Groups?

If a transition can continue with the current standards development process to self

publish work, then a transition can work.

• Are there broader groupings of forensic science disciplines that could form the basis of Guidance

Groups than the current group of twenty-one SWGs? If so, what are those groupings?

Not enough knowledge on the other SWG groups standards development process to

comment.

• Is there a need for a cross disciplinary functional approach (i.e. statistical analysis) and how could

the Guidance Groups be structured to best address that need?

A cross disciplinary approach should be explored if a need should arise. Having a

research think tank can be a valuable tool for Guidance Groups.

• To what extent do Guidance Groups need to support different forensic science disciplines

differently from one another?

The forensic science community and Guidance Groups should have mutual support for

each other in the advancement of standards development. Guidance Groups support

should be similar for all forensic science disciplines.

Andrew T. Szymanski, D-ABFDE

Forensic Scientist 

Questioned Documents Section

Washington State Patrol

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 300 of 337
To:$Susan$Ballou$

$$$$$$Office$of$Special$Programs$

$$$$$$National$Institute$of$Standards$and$Technology$

From:$Warren$Tewes,$DDS,$MS$$$$tewesdds@ocmemd.org$

$$$$$$$$$$$$Diplomate,$American$Board$of$Forensic$Odontology$

$$$$$$$$$$$$Chief$Forensic$Odontologist,$OCME,$State$of$Maryland$

$$$$$$$$$$$$Faculty,$NCIC$Dental$Coding,$CJIS,$FBI$

$Date:$October$23,$2013$

Re:$Notice$of$Inquiry$

I$have$selected$portions$of$the$Notice$of$Inquiry$(NOI)$to$comment$that$I$hope$will$be$helpful.$I$

am$chiefly$speaking$from$my$experience$on$the$Maryland$State$Health$Claims$Arbitration$

Board.$This$Board$attempts$to$settle$medical$malpractice$claims$prior$to$a$full$judge/jury$trial.$

Claimant$and$defense$attorneys$fully$argue$their$case$to$a$tribunal$of$an$attorney,$a$healthcare$

provider$and$a$lay$person.$While$the$lay$person$has$no$insight$on$the$science$of$the$medical$

malpractice,$I$always$find$their$challenging,$sometimes$adversarial,$questions$as$thought$

provoking$and$grounding.$In$this$context,$my$over$reaching$suggestion$herein$is$the$integration$

of$certified$forensic$scientists$serving$in$Guidance$Groups$who$are$not$subject$matter$experts$

(SME)$in$that$Group$to$facilitate$a$role$as$a$devil’s$advocate$to$simply$ask$the$challenge$

questions$that$will$provoke$the$SMEs$into$grounded,$foundation$outcomes.$I$will$apply$this$

notion$to$the$NOI$questions$that$follow.$My$comments$will$begin$and$end$with$WT.$

1.$Structure$of$the$Guidance$Groups$

Given$the$scope$and$principles$of$the$Guidance$Groups$outlined$here,$what$are$structural$

models$that$could$best$support$the$Guidance$Groups,$taking$into$account$the$technical,$policy,$

legal,$and$operational$aspects$of$forensic$science?$

What$are$the$elements$which$make$existing$forensic$Scientific$Working$Groups$(SWGs)$

successful?$Are$there$examples$of$best$practices$in$specific$SWGs$that$ought$to$be$replicated$in$

Guidance$Groups?$If$so,$what$are$they?$

Would$partnership$with$a$standards$development$organization$(SDO)$in$which$the$standard$is$

issued$by$the$SDO$present$any$obstacle$for$participation$by$a$broad$range$of$forensic$science$

stakeholders$in$the$development$of$a$standard?$If$so,$why?$

Would$partnership$with$an$SDO$in$which$the$standard$is$issued$by$the$SDO$present$any$obstacle$

to$broad$adoption$of$a$standard?$If$so,$why?$

WT:$Comments$and$suggestions$to$these$four$groups$of$questions$have$a$common$thread$that$

could$be$addressed$with$“the$integration$of$certified$forensic$scientists$serving$in$Guidance$

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 301 of 337
Response from Warren Tewes 

Groups$who$are$not$subject$matter$experts$(SME)$in$that$Group$to$facilitate$a$role$as$a$devil’s$

advocate$to$simply$ask$the$challenge$questions$that$will$provoke$the$SMEs$into$grounded,$

foundation$outcomes.”$WT$

2.$Impact$of$Guidance$Groups$

How$should$NIST$researchers$engage$with$the$Guidance$Groups$in$support$of$the$goal$to$

strengthen$the$nation's$use$of$forensic$science$by$supporting$the$development$and$propagation$

of$forensic$science$consensus$documentary$standards,$identifying$needs$of$forensic$science$

research$and$measurement$standards,$and$verifying$the$scientific$basis$exists$for$each$

discipline?

WT:$In$a$similar$vein,$I$have$been$serving$NIST$for$forensic$odontology$informatics$which$has$

been$facilitated$by$Brad$Wing$who$is$not$a$SME.$Nonetheless,$he$has$been$the$non$“$subject$

matter$experts$(SME)$in$that$Group$to$facilitate$a$role$as$a$devil’s$advocate$to$simply$ask$the$

challenge$questions$that$will$provoke$the$SMEs$into$grounded,$foundation$outcomes.”$This$has$

worked$well$for$our$informatics$project$and$could$be$a$model$for$NIST$to$“engage$with$the$

Guidance$Groups”.$WT$

3.$Representation$in$the$Guidance$Groups$

Who$are$the$stakeholders$who$should$be$represented$on$the$Guidance$Groups?$What$steps$can$

NIST$take$to$ensure$appropriately$broad$representation$within$the$Guidance$Groups?$What$

does$balanced$representation$mean$and$how$can$it$be$achieved?$

How$should$interested$parties$who$may$not$be$direct$participants$in$Guidance$Groups,$engage$

in$a$meaningful$way$to$have$an$impact$on$issues$in$front$of$the$Guidance$Groups?$

WT:$For$these$two$questions,$the$certified$SMEs$are$the$“stakeholders”$and$the$non$“subject$

matter$experts$(SME)$in$that$Group$to$facilitate$a$role$as$a$devil’s$advocate$to$simply$ask$the$

challenge$questions$that$will$provoke$the$SMEs$into$grounded,$foundation$outcomes”$are$the$

“interested$parties$who$may$not$be$direct$participants$in$Guidance$Groups,”$yet$they$“engage$

in$a$meaningful$way$to$have$an$impact$on$issues$in$front$of$the$Guidance$Groups”.$WT$

$$

4.$Scope$of$the$Guidance$Groups$

Is$there$a$need$for$a$cross_disciplinary$functional$approach$(i.e.$statistical$analysis)$and$how$

could$the$Guidance$Groups$be$structured$to$best$address$that$need?$

To$what$extent$do$Guidance$Groups$need$to$support$different$forensic$science$disciplines$

differently$from$one$another?$

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 302 of 337
Response from Warren Tewes 

WT:$A$way$of$addressing$these$two$questions$is$to$have$non$“subject$matter$experts$(SME)$in$

that$Group$to$facilitate$a$role$as$a$devil’s$advocate$to$simply$ask$the$challenge$questions$that$

will$provoke$the$SMEs$into$grounded,$foundation$outcomes.”$WT$

I$hope$these$thoughts$contribute$in$a$constructive$fashion.$

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 303 of 337
The National Association of Medical Examiners® 

31479 Arrow Lane, Marceline, MO 64658 

660-734-1891 Fax: 888-370-4839 Email: name@thename.org Website: www.thename.org

OFFICERS 2013 

*President Executive Vice President Executive Director

Gregory Schmunk, M.D. Kurt B. Nolte, M.D. Denise D. McNally 

*Vice-President 

Gregory G. Davis, M.D.

*Secretary-Treasurer

J. Scott Denton, M.D.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2013

*Andrew M. Baker, M.D.

Chairman

Rochelle F. Altholz, MPH (2015)

Leah Bush, M.D. (2013)

Steve J. Cina, M.D. (2015) 

Kim Collins, M.D. (2013) 

Giancarlo Di Vella, M.D. (2014)

Joseph Felo, M.D. (2014) 

Mark A. Flomenbaum, M.D. (2013)

*David Fowler, M.D. (2014)

Randall E. Frost, M.D. (2014) 

James Gill, M.D. (2013) 

Amy C. Gruszecki, D.O. (2013) 

Kathleen Diebold Hargrave, M.A. (2013)

Donald R. Jason, M.D., J.D. (2013) 

Eric L. Kiesel, M.D. (2014) 

Yvonne I. Milewski, M.D. (2014) 

Christopher M. Milroy, M.D. (2015) 

*Marcus B. Nashelsky, M.D. (2015) 

Brian L. Peterson, M.D. (2015) 

J. Keith Pinckard, M.D. (2015) 

Joseph Prahlow, M.D. (Ex-Officio)

Christopher Rogers, M.D. (2014) 

Mark A. Super, M.D. (2013)

Lindsey C. Thomas, M.D. (2015) 

Michael Ward, M.D. (2014)

*Indicates Member of

Executive Committee 

November 12, 2013 

Susan Ballou 

National Institutes of Standards and Technology 

100 Bureau Drive 

Mailstop 8102 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Dear Ms. Ballou: 

The National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) appreciates this 

opportunity to respond to the Notice published in The Federal Register, 

“Possible	Models	for	the	Administration	and	Support	of	Discipline-Specific 

Guidance	Groups	for	Forensic	Science”.

NAME is the national professional organization of physician medical 

examiners, medicolegal death investigators, and death investigation 

system administrators who perform the official duties of the medicolegal 

investigation of deaths of public interest in the United States. NAME was 

founded in 1966 with the dual purposes of fostering the professional 

growth of physician death investigators and disseminating the 

professional and technical information vital to the continuing 

improvement of the medical investigation of violent, suspicious and 

unusual deaths. Growing from a small nucleus of concerned physicians, 

NAME has expanded its scope to include physician medical examiners and 

coroners, medicolegal death investigators, and medicolegal system 

administrators from throughout the United States and other countries. 

NAME serves as a resource to individuals and jurisdictions seeking to 

improve medicolegal death investigation by continually working to 

develop and upgrade national standards for death investigation. NAME 

aims to involve competent professional medicolegal death investigators in 

every jurisdiction in the United States. 

We do not wish to address every question in The Federal Register, but 

would like to offer some general comments. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 304 of 337
Structure of the Guidance Groups 

Standards should be vetted and promulgated through cooperation and formal 

coordination with active professional organizations, such as NAME. 

Membership should not be fee-based. Membership should be based on 

competence (both professional and cultural) and subject matter expertise, not 

influence or financial assets. Many medicolegal death investigation systems lack 

the financial resources to support a fee-based model.

Impact of Guidance Groups 

Any Guidance Group dealing with Forensic Pathology or Medicolegal Death 

Investigation should recognize that Forensic Pathology already has the most robust 

professional certification in all of forensic science (at least 12 years of post-high 

school education with certification by the American Board of Pathology). 

Forensic Pathology is the practice of medicine and does not need validation as a 

discipline. Because it is the practice of medicine, both an art and a science, it 

should be evaluated as such and be subject to the recommendations of peer 

scientists, namely other Forensic Pathologists and the medical community. 

Standards should be developed on the basis of quantitation of expected benefits, 

costs and the balance between them. 

NAME has been successful in promoting excellence in the practice of forensic 

medicine through its autopsy performance standards and office accreditation 

process. The Guidance Groups should support and build on these successes. It 

would be counterproductive to destroy the structure and standards that have 

already proven effective. The Guidance Groups should develop recommendations 

to encourage widespread implementation of the existing NAME standards. 

While the scope of the work of the Guidance Groups should be directed by NIST, it 

should not be dictated at the document-specific level. 

The Guidance Groups should not dictate enforcement mechanisms. 

NIST should recognize that different disciplines have different methods of 

inference and validation and cognitive specialties have different ways of drawing 

conclusions than the laboratory sciences. Medicine is not manufacturing and 

making a medical diagnosis is not simply a laboratory procedure. Not all 

disciplines lend themselves to statistical models and it is important to recognize 

the foundational differences between disciplines. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 305 of 337
Representation in the Guidance Groups

Practitioners should make up the majority of the Guidance Group structure. 

“Stakeholders”	who	are	not	subject	experts	should	not	create	or	dictate	

professional medical practice standards. Stakeholders with an obvious function, 

such as a liaison to another discipline for example, could constitute a minority of 

the membership and serve in an advisory capacity. However, it is the position of 

NAME that physicians should be responsible for practicing medicine and that lay 

people should not dictate diagnoses, manner of death determination, or other 

aspects of forensic medical practice. It is not appropriate for a non-physician 

“stakeholder”	such	as	a	sheriff,	coroner	or	funeral	home	director	to	dictate the 

practice of medicine. 

Any such Guidance Group should recognize the broad range of forensic medical 

practice and should not by its structure exclude private practitioners, private 

contractors, academic forensic pathologists, or other forensic pathologists who are 

not employed by governmental units. 

If the current SWGMDI transitions to a Guidance Group, it should increase the 

medical representation by including representatives from the College of American 

Pathologists and the American Society for Clinical Pathology and medicolegal death 

investigators should not be over-represented.

Scope of the Guidance Groups 

If the Guidance Group is non-medical then it should not make pronouncements on 

medical practice or medical judgments. 

We are grateful for this opportunity to respond to the Notice concerning Guidance 

Groups for Forensic Science and look forward to working with you in the future to 

strengthen forensic science in the United States. 

Very truly yours, 

Lindsey C. Thomas, MD 

Chair, NAME Ad Hoc Committee on Government Affairs 

Gregory A. Schmunk, MD 

NAME President 

Andrew M. Baker, MD 

Chair, NAME Board of Directors 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 306 of 337
Response from Michele Triplett 

Call$for$comments$on$Guidance$Groups:

The!current!SWG’s!are!1)!too!large,!2)!too!discipline!specific!and!3)!do!not!require!that!a!scientific!basis!

exists!for!recommendations!or!standards.!!!

I!suggest!the!GG’s!be!smaller and!the$members$be$knowledgeable$in$acceptable$scientific$protocols to!

ensure!that!all#recommendations##are#scientifically#valid.!!!

In!addition,!there!is!no!reason!for!each!pattern!evidence!discipline!to!have!their!own!GG.!!If!the!

procedures!have!a!scientific!basis,!they!should!apply!to!all!pattern!evidence!disciplines.!!Perhaps!2F3!

people!from!each!discipline!(who!show!they!understand!scientific!protocols)!would!make!a!good!GG.!!A!

few!academics!who!specialize!in!scientific!methodology!would!be!good!too.!!If!all!pattern!evidence!

disciplines!were!going!in!the!same!direction!(had!the!same!standards!and!were!using!the!same!criteria)!

then!it!would!strengthen!the!weight!of!this!type!of!forensic!evidence.

Most!agencies,!regardless!of!discipline,!say!they!follow!the!current!SWG!recommendations!but!tests!

show!this!is!not!true.!!The!lack!of!adherence!to!the!current!SWG!recommendations!may!serve!to!show!

that!they!are!outside!validated!principles.!!Strong!validated!principles!will!catch!on!and!be!followed!by!

others!(regardless!of!whether!they!are!from!the!SWGS,!NCFS!or!elsewhere).!!!

The!Human!Factors!Group!was!a!strong,!well!supported!group.!The!forensic!community!was!looking!

forward!to!their!recommendations!but!the!recommendations!got!little!attention,!notoriety,!or!

acceptance.!!I!think!there!are!several!reasons!for!this.!!The!group!was!so!big!and!diverse!that!even!its!

members!were!not!in!support!of!what!was!put!out.!!This!severely!impacted!the!acceptance!of!their!

report.!!!

Houston!has!a!Forensic!Science!Board!with!an!advisory!group!(known!as!TAG!–!the!Technical!Advisory!

Group).!!It!has!one!person!from!each!discipline.!!You!may!want!to!check!to!see!how!this!is!working!for!

them.!!Each!member!is!individually!vetted!to!ensure!they!are!qualified.

Michele$Triplett$

Forensic!Operations!

Manager!King!County!

Regional!AFIS!

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 307 of 337
I am a forensic document examiner with years of participation in drafting standards, 

both at ASTM International Sub-Committee E30.02 and SWGDOC. I have also held 

administrative posts in ASTM Committee E30. I believe that the development and 

promulgation of standards by these organizations has been valuable service to my 

profession, the field of forensic science, and the wider public that we serve. I look forward 

to further progress. 

All the best, 

Peter Tytell, NYC 

1. Structure of the Guidance Groups

§ Given the scope and principles of the Guidance Groups outlined here, what are

structural models that could best support the Guidance Groups, taking into account the 

technical, policy, legal, and operational aspects of forensic science? 

The many decades of experience by private sector Standards Development 

Organizations (SDOs), government agencies, inter-governmental committees, and consortia 

of all kinds should be utilized to the greatest extent possible. There is no reason to spend 

time re-inventing the wheel. Indeed, the policies, practices, and procedures developed in 

the standard writing world, as reflected in various ISO documents, is recapitulated 

virtually verbatim in the MOU. Furthermore, a fully ISO compliant structural model will 

add credibility to the output of the Guidance Groups among practitioners, administrators, 

the judiciary, and the public. Such a structural model can be found at ASTM International 

(see Regulations Governing ASTM Technical Committees, available at 

http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/Regs.pdf ). 

Simply working within ASTM International would seem an easy choice and would also 

comply with the Federal policy to use private sector SDOs whenever practical. This 

solution has worked well for some disciplines for some years, including forensic document 

examination. However, it is a sad fact that problems within the forensic document 

examination sector made this solution unworkable. Furthermore, as shameful as it is to 

admit, the spectacle of the strife leading to the demise of ASTM International SubCommittee E30.02 has negatively impressed both forensic document examiners and other 

forensic practitioners, souring many on involvement with ASTM or any other private sector 

SDO. Beneath the negative image from the Donnybrook, there were a number of issues, 

some of which are discussed below. 

A possible path forward a would involve a forensic SDO type organization (a Forensic 

Consortium) under the guidance of NIST. As with ASTM International Committee E30, 

documents from one Guidance Group would be vetted by the members of the other 

Guidance Groups, providing input from diverse forensic perspectives that should result in 

final output of the highest quality. Guidance of this quality could be used as a Standard 

Operating Procedure (SOP) in forensic crime labs, incorporated by reference into 

requirements for laboratory accreditation by organizations like ASCLD/LAB, and even 

mandated by legislation at the federal and state levels. 

The key to this kind of ideal situation is to make sure that the best people are involved 

in all phases of the process, from first draft through periodic review and updating (just ask 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 308 of 337
the unhappy folks dealing with the Affordable Care Act Health Insurance Marketplace web 

site). Attracting this level of talent can be a problem for the reasons discussed below. One 

solution to the previous problems could be to have the individuals (not organizations) that 

are voting members of the Guidance Groups meet the highest level of professional criteria. 

Diversity of background experience in various federal, state, local, and private work 

would be desirable. It should be noted that while this enterprise will be run with 

government funds, the practitioners from the private sector should be included for several 

reasons: 

a) After years of training and decades of experience in one or more government labs,

individuals retire into private practice; it would be a terrible waste to ignore this source of 

guidance. 

b) In some forensic disciplines the leading experts exist largely or entirely in the private

sector. 

c) Due to lack of facilities, personnel, or because of budgetary constraints many law

enforcement agencies and prosecutorial offices outsource forensic work to the private sector. 

d) When a government lab reports on a criminal matter it is simple due diligence for the

defense to engage a private sector expert to review the case. 

e) Considerable forensic work is done in the context of civil litigation. where both sides will

use private practice experts. 

In other words, the tap the best possible discipline-specific expertise and to provide 

guidance appropriate to the broad areas of forensic practice, private sector specialists 

should be sought for the Guidance Groups. 

While the highest quality of technical work should be done by such a group, it is 

desirable to have the broadest possible input from the field at large. This can be 

accomplished through public posting of drafts with notice broadcast by e-mail to all known 

professional organizations and practitioners (once a list is assembled, a matter of a single 

keystroke at virtually no cost). It is anticipated that some comments on drafts will be 

incorporated into documents (with thanks), while other comments will be rejected; 

procedures for voting, reconsideration, and appeal will be necessary and models already 

exist within the various SWGs (e.g., SWGIT). It might be advisable for NIST to provide a 

top level review committee to handle intractable problems. 

§ What elements or models would facilitate the sharing of best practices and uniform

practices across the Guidance Groups? 

It is not clear whether it is synonymous with or subsumed under the concept of 

Transparency, but one important requirement in achieving the stated goals of “the 

establishment and maintenance of successful Guidance Groups” is Clarity. 

One area of difficulty in drafting standards can be a lack of clarity in the meaning of 

basic terms. Here also the experience of the government standards organizations and 

private SDOs that all operate under the guidance of the ISO can be useful. It is common 

for these organizations to have a Style Guide that are used in drafting their documents. 

Having reviewed a number of these from diverse bodies, they are much more similar than 

they are different, no doubt due to the requirements of the ISO. 

NIST should provide an ISO compliant Style Guide for the guidance of all the Guidance 

Groups, whether a guide is drafted under NIST supervision or an extant guide is adopted in 

whole or part (e.g., the ASTM “Blue Book” (Form and Style for ASTM Standards available 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 309 of 337
from http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/Blue_Book.pdf) has been used in drafting a dozens of 

forensic standards and is familiar to a many potential Guidance Group contributors). 

Mandating use of a single ISO compliant Style Guide will ensure usage consistency and 

clarity of meaning for the user and other readers encountering important terms like shall, 

should, and may. Besides ensuring that all documents will have the full complement of 

information to maximize utility, the presence of an authoritative guide will avoid lengthy 

and time consuming debates over the niceties of grammar and usage (no matter how 

interesting or entertaining the discussions might be). 

At another level NIST can help each Guidance Group develop uniform “boilerplate” for 

the language that inevitably repeats in related documents, and also to try to reach a 

consensus on that kind of language across several (or even all) Guidance Groups. The 

drafting of such set-piece sentences in not trivial, but it has been proven to be worthwhile. 

Also improvement of the boilerplate over time is both inevitable and useful, so a path for 

revision should exist, with provisions for simultaneously updating all relevant documents. 

The combination of a Style Guide setting out the required parts of the document and 

establishing basic usage rules, along with “boilerplate” language for the routine portions of 

the document, has been found to save time and focus the subject-matter specialists on the 

topic-specific essentials. 

§ Are there public policies or private sector initiatives in other countries that have

successfully strengthened the nation’s use of forensic science by supporting the 

development and propagation of forensic science consensus documentary standards, 

identifying needs of forensic science research and measurement standards, and 

verifying the scientific basis exists for each discipline? If so, what are they? 

The European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) a well organized and 

productive international consortium of government labs (http://www.enfsi.eu/). However, 

membership is institutional (not individual), excludes the private sector, and the material 

is not always available to the general public. 

Every generation some Federal agency conducts a review of these needs. The items 

listed in the LEAA version from about 40 years ago are still largely relevant. 

§ What are the elements which make existing forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs)

successful? Are there examples of best practices in specific SWGs that ought to be 

replicated in Guidance Groups? If so, what are they? 

Various SWGDOC practices have worked well: 

a) Membership is for individuals. A previous system of institutional memberships was

abandoned; too many problems and too limiting. 

b) Members are chosen based on discipline-specific expertise. Previously, there was no

formal membership and individuals were often asked to participate based topic-specific 

expertise relevant to the drafts being prepared. It may seem ad hoc, but it was run very 

well and was extremely productive 

c) Drafts were prepared by small task groups (3 to 7 knowledgeable individuals) run by a

leader (usually with extensive topic-specific expertise); the task groups also dealt with 

comments on the drafts. Final drafts were brought to the larger group, and occasionally 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 310 of 337
specific problematic issues 

b) Rounds of e-mails and phone conferences have been useful, but actual sit down meetings

(one week, twice a year) were the most productive environment to craft documents. 

Meeting at a hotel in the Virginia suburbs of DC held down the room costs and facilitated 

attendance by commuters from the high concentration of labs in the area. Gaithersburg 

would also work along these lines, though meeting in the hotel where members are staying 

saves on morning commute and security clearance time. 

§ Would partnership with a standards development organization (SDO) in which the

standard is issued by the SDO present any obstacle for participation by a broad range 

of forensics science stakeholders in the development of a standard? If so, why? 

Several objections arose from the private sector SDO model, ending the very fruitful 

years of forensic document examiners working with ASTM; some of these issues were also 

problematic for practitioners of other forensic disciplines within ASTM: 

a) Fee for participation.

b) Loss of control of work product.

c) Purchase of standards.

d) Restriction on voting membership.

e) No qualifications for voting membership.

It is said that if you work for free, you will be very busy. It is one thing get the best 

people in a field to spend days and weeks away from work to write standards (instead of an 

article or a book) by appealing to the better angels of our nature, invoking the greater good 

of the profession, of the justice system, etc., etc. However, it is more than a little galling to 

be required to pay for the privilege of working for nothing, especially when fiscal 

constraints at all levels of government make it increasingly less likely that agencies will 

pay membership fees (this fiscal factor has led to the loss of some members of ASTM E30). 

Added to this is the issue that the copyright on the intellectual property resulting from 

all that work will be held by the SDO, creating a potential issue if the authors of the 

standard ever want to use their own words in a subsequent book. Indeed, permission from 

the SDO could be required if those who created the standard want to use it in court for a 

Daubert hearing, or during testimony (direct or cross-examination), or even as an 

attachment to a report, in the interests transparency, for the use of the submitting client, 

opposing counsel, and the court. These aspects of a private sector SDO’s operation might 

not conflict with the letter of the provisions of the MOU to produce “discipline-specific 

practice guidance that will become publicly available” because they would be publicly 

available for purchase, but it would likely be counter productive to the “the development 

and propagation of forensic science consensus documentary standards”. 

Other problems that arose during the work of forensic document examiners within the 

private SDO framework of ASTM International involved issues of voting membership. 

While a large, active government lab that handled many hundreds of cases per year might 

have a concentration of highly motivated, thoroughly experienced, top-level subject-matter 

experts working on a draft document, only one person in that part of the lab could vote on 

acceptance of the standard or vote to resolve negative comments. On the other hand, an 

equal vote could be cast by a member with very limited understanding of the topic who had 

entered private practice by taking an ad in the phone book after only the most cursory 

exposure to the discipline. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 311 of 337
There was considerable frustration of these restrictions, but they were secondary to the 

aggravation caused by individuals who many of those actively drafting the documents felt 

really should not have been participating at this level of professional activity. 

These frustrations and disputes that slowed work to a halt led to the withdrawal of 

SWGDOC from ASTM participation, depriving the sub-committee of its most productive 

members and its major stakeholders. This is not something to be repeated. 

§ Would partnership with an SDO in which the standard is issued by the SDO present any

obstacle to broad adoption of a standard? If so, why? 

See the sad tale above. The forensic document examiners would not go through that 

again, and their bad experience has probably warned off others from what should have been 

(could have been) an ideal situation. 

§ Would a fee-based membership model run through a not-for-profit organization (similar to

the National Conference of Weights and Measures) present a significant obstacle for 

participation? 

This model seems to involve institutional membership rather than individual 

membership, a negative based on SWGDOC experience. 

Fees might not be a problem during the Seven Fat Years, but those years are behind 

us. 

§ If the Guidance Groups followed a fee-based membership model, are there appropriatelytiered systems for fees that would prevent ‘‘pricing out’’ organizations, including 

individuals? 

This would create levels of members. The idea is to have everyone on the same level 

working toward a common goal. Would their be a level of agency budget that would qualify 

a participant for Guidance Group Aid 

§ Other than a privatized model, are there other means to maintain a governance or

coordinating body in the long term? If possible, please give examples of existing 

structures and their positive and negative attributes. 

Maybe. 

Establish uniform consensus based bylaws that apply to each and every Guidance 

Group as well as a general set of bylaws that govern interaction of the Guidance Groups 

and provide for an appeal process. 

2. Impact of Guidance Groups

§ In its role in administering and supporting the Guidance Groups, NIST’s aim is to

improve discipline practices by advancing forensic science standards and techniques 

through a collaborative consensus building process with Federal, state and local 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 312 of 337
community partners. NIST thus seeks comments about the ways in which the structure, 

function and operation would best support the Guidance Groups by being a catalyst for 

such improvements. 

Every generation some Federal agency conducts a review of these needs. The items 

listed in the LEAA version from about 40 years ago are still largely relevant. 

§ Given that the Guidance Groups cannot mandate the adoption of standards, what can

they do to best leverage their position and encourage adoption? To what extent does 

membership and transparency impact possible adoption of guidance at the state and 

local level? 

As noted above, membership in the Guidance Groups of the best experts in the field 

with produce the best guidance documents, and that level of quality should attract the 

attention of the field and lead to the general taking up of the documents (made especially 

attractive by the price). 

As the kind of individuals that should be actively involved in Guidance Groups are also 

the kind that tend to be actively involved in professional membership organizations, they 

can encourage endorsement of the work of their Guidance Group through their 

organizations. These individuals are sometimes inspectors for accrediting bodies such as 

ASCLD/LAB, and would accept Guidance Group document that had been 3-hole punched 

and put in a binder as an appropriate SOP at time of inspection. A consensus by inspectors 

and accreditation organizations could lead to a recommendation and widespread adoption of 

Guidance Group documents as SOPs. 

§ Are there best practices or models to consider with regard to a structure that would

encourage effective communication with the scientific community to explore research 

gaps and aid in recognizing research priorities? 

Every generation some Federal agency conducts a review of these needs. The items 

listed in the LEAA version from about 40 years ago are still largely relevant. 

Also, in 1974 a task group of E30.02 members prepared a memo: 

“Re: Areas within Questioned Document Examination wherein research funds may be 

expected to appreciably advance expertise and facilities for the discovery and proof facts 

concerning documents.” 

These projects were “shovel ready” 39 years ago, and are essentially still ready to go today. 

§ How should NIST researchers engage with the Guidance Groups in support of the goal to

strengthen the nation’s use of forensic science by supporting the development and 

propagation of forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of 

forensic science research and measurement standards, and verifying the scientific basis 

exists for each discipline? 

See above. 

Things should develop during ongoing contact. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 313 of 337
3. Representation in the Guidance Groups

§ Given the diverse, multi-sector set of stakeholders in forensic science, representation in

Guidance Groups must be carefully balanced and inclusive. 

The level of individual that should have membership in the Guidance Groups is 

discussed above. The full breadth of stakeholder input can be obtained through comments 

on drafts posted on the Guidance Group’s web site, with notice widely distributed to every 

relevant organization and individual. The balance of interests of stakeholders can be 

ensured by a proper appeals process in the Guidance Groups’ bylaws. 

§ Who are the stakeholders who should be represented on the Guidance Groups? What steps

can NIST take to ensure appropriately broad representation within the Guidance 

Groups? What does balanced representation mean and how can it be achieved? 

See above. 

§ What is the best way to engage organizations playing a role in forensic science, standards

development and practice? 

See above. 

§ How should interested parties who may not be direct participants in Guidance Groups,

engage in a meaningful way to have an impact on issues in front of the Guidance 

Groups? 

Through comment on posted draft documents. General suggestions could also be 

solicited for submission through the Guidance Group web site. 

§ To what extent and in what ways must the Federal government, as well as state, local,

tribal and territorial governments be involved at the outset? 

Federal financial support will be necessary at the beginning and for ongoing support. 

All levels of government will have to provide support by giving employees time to work 

on Guidance Group documents and perhaps financial support for travel and membership. 

Private sector participation will also require commitment of time (which is money for 

the private practitioner). 

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups

§ Should all of the current forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) transition to

Guidance Groups? 

To the extent that members of the various disciplines are willing to work within the 

new structure and actively support the efforts, yes. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 314 of 337
§ Are there broader groupings of forensic science disciplines that could form the basis of

Guidance Groups than the current group of twenty-one SWGs? If so, what are those 

groupings? 

The American Academy of Forensic Sciences has fewer sections, but certain sections 

have major internal divisions (e.g., at the annual meetings the Criminalistics section has 

full, but separate, sessions tracks for DNA and for the other criminalistics topics) and the 

General section naturally covers a multitude of topics. Certain groupings might seem to fit 

well, like the disciplines that could be considered to be based on pattern recognition of trace 

or physical evidence, including handwriting identification; yet examination of ignitable 

liquid residue with GC/MS can also be considered to involve pattern recognition, though 

this area of criminalistics could be grouped more closely with other analytical laboratory 

fields like toxicology. 

Though twenty-one SWGs might seem like an excessively fragmented and disparate 

group, bear in mind that many of these specialized SWGs include many task groups 

devoted to discrete sub-topics. 

§ Is there a need for a crossdisciplinary functional approach (i.e. statistical analysis) and

how could the Guidance Groups be structured to best address that need? 

A Research Guidance Group could address these issues based on requests from the 

other Guidance Groups. Again following the experience of ASTM E30, such an 

Interdisciplinary Guidance Group might also be useful for working on general “boilerplate” 

cross-discipline sentences as well as general procedural standards. 

§ To what extent do Guidance Groups need to support different forensic science disciplines

differently from one another? 

While special needs might surface as things proceed, there will likely be more 

similarities that differences in the production of guidance documents. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 315 of 337
Response from Scott Vajdos 

Dear%Ms.%Ballou:%

My%name%is%Scott%Vajdos.%%I%proudly%serve%on%the%core%committee%of%SWGDRUG,%

as%the%representative%from%the%Southwestern%Association%of%Forensic%Scientists%

(SWAFS).%%I%currently%serve%SWAFS%as%a%member%of%its%Board%of%Directors.%%I%also%

am%a%member%of%the%Clandestine%Laboratory%Investigating%Chemists,%where%I%

have%served%on%its%Steering%Committee.%%Speaking%a%member%of%all%three%

organizations,%I%would%like%respond%to%the%notice%published%in%the%Federal%

Register%by%NIST%regarding%Possible%Models%for%the%Administration%and%Support%of%

DisciplinePSpecific%Guidance%Groups%for%Forensic%Science.

First%and%foremost,%the%existing%Scientific%Working%Group%(SWG)%model%has%a%

proven%track%record%of%being%extremely%valuable%to%the%forensic%science%and%legal%

communities.%It%is%unclear%why%NIST%is%proposing%to%create%a%new%model%using%

Guidance%Groups%(GG)%when%a%proven%model%for%forensic%science%disciplines%

already%exists.%SWGs%and%their%standards%have%been%promulgated%for%nearly%two%

decades.%Courts%rely%on%SWG%minimum%standards%in%forensic%science%evidence%

admissibility%hearings%(e.g.,%Daubert).%SWG%standards%are%not%only%published%in%

academic%forensic%science%textbooks%as%good%laboratory%practices,%but%are%taught%

in%forensic%science%degree%programs.%Lastly,%the%instrument%manufacturers%in%

private%industry%continue%to%cite%SWGs%touting%that%their%products%meet%or%

exceed%SWG%standards.%SWGs%have%a%wellPestablished%name%in%forensic%science,%

academic%and%legal%arenas,%so%why%start%over?%%

It%is%fully%recognized%that%the%current%SWG%model%is%not%perfect%and%does%in%fact%

require%enhancements,%so%why%not%start%there?%The%primary%criticisms%of%SWGs%

identified%in%the%NAS%report%“Strengthening%Forensic%Science%in%the%United%

States:%A%Path%Forward”%were%that%SWGs:%meet%irregularly;%have%no%clear%

funding;%have%no%standardized%membership%standards;%recommendations%are%not%

enforceable;%and%don’t%measure%their%impact%by%formal%survey.%Rather%than%

create%a%new%model%using%GGs,%it%is%recommended%that%NIST%consider%

strengthening%the%existing%SWG%model%by%addressing%those%identified%criticisms.%

NIST%could%simply%absorb%the%current%SWGs%(name%included)%under%their%

umbrella%and%establish%a%governing%body%which%provides:%a%clear%source%of%annual%

Federal%funding;%shared%resources;%uniform%membership%standards;%uniform%

bylaws;%mandated%use%of%Standard%Developing%Organizations%(SDO);%overall%

administration;%etc.%

1. Structure)of)the)Guidance)Groups)

•%QUESTION:%Given%the%scope%and%principles%of%the%Guidance%Groups%outlined%

here,%what%are%structural%models%that%could%best%support%the%Guidance%Groups,%

taking%into%account%the%technical,%policy,%legal,%and%operational%aspects%of%

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 316 of 337
Response from Scott Vajdos 

forensic%science?%What%elements%or%models%would%facilitate%the%sharing%of%best%

practices%and%uniform%practices%across%the%Guidance%Groups?%%

ANSWER:%NIST%should%provide%overall%administration%(funding,%meeting%venues,%

IT%support,%etc.)%of%the%SWGs%and%create%an%executive%board%of%SWG%

chairs/members%that%are%responsible%for%harmonizing%the%SWGs%(bylaws,%

standard%setting%practices,%glossary%of%terms,%membership%standards,%etc.).%This%

executive%board%could%then%use%a%system%similar%to%that%of%SDOs%for%the%adoption%

of%their%governance%documents.%Once%a%governance%document%is%established,%the%

individual%SWGs%must%comply.%%

•%QUESTION:%Are%there%public%policies%or%private%sector%initiatives%in%other%

countries%that%have%successfully%strengthened%the%nation’s%use%of%forensic%

science%by%supporting%the%development%and%propagation%of%forensic%science%

consensus%documentary%standards,%identifying%needs%of%forensic%science%

research%and%measurement%standards,%and%verifying%the%scientific%basis%exists%for%

each%discipline?%If%so,%what%are%they?%

ANSWER:%There%are%many%organizations%in%other%countries%that%exist%that%have%

strengthened%the%nation’s%use%of%forensic%science.%Just%to%name%a%few:%European%

Network%for%Forensic%Science%Institutes%(ENFSI);%International%Forensic%Strategic%

Alliance%(IFSA);%Senior%Managers%of%Australian%and%New%Zealand%Forensic%

Laboratories%(SMANSZFL);%Iberoamerica%Academy%of%Criminalistics%and%Forensic%

Studies%(AICEF);%Asian%Forensic%Science%Network%(AFSN);%and%United%Nations%

Office%on%Drugs%and%Crime%(UNODC).%As%an%example,%SWGDRUG%has%a%strong%

collaboration%with%ENFSI’s%Drug%Working%Group.%Each%organization%endorses%the%

other’s%work%products%and%close%communication%exists%to%pool%resources%such%

that%the%two%organizations%are%not%working%on%the%same%projects.%This%has%led%to%

even%more%standard/recommendation%development%over%the%past%decade.%%

•%QUESTION:%What%are%the%elements%which%make%existing%forensic%Scientific%

Working%Groups%(SWGs)%successful?%Are%there%examples%of%best%practices%in%

specific%SWGs%that%ought%to%be%replicated%in%Guidance%Groups?%If%so,%what%are%

they?%%

ANSWER:%Primarily,%strong%leadership,%consistent%funding%and%actively%engaged%

members.%Membership%established%by%representing%larger%forensic%science%

institutions%(e.g.,%UNODC,%ENFSI,%ASCLD,%AAFS,%NIST,%SWAFS,%etc.)%proves%to%be%

more%successful%than%individual%organizations.%By%representing%larger%

institutions,%it%requires%information%transfer%to%all%levels%for%a%much%broader%

audience%including%local,%state,%federal%and%international%entities.%Forensic%

science%is%an%international%endeavor,%as%such;%SWGs%must%have%representation%

from%international%organizations%to%be%effective%and%globally%recognized.%This%

concept%is%similar%to%laboratories%being%accredited%to%international%standards;%it%

carries%much%more%weight%to%be%internationally%recognized.%Smaller%groups%are%in%

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 317 of 337
Response from Scott Vajdos 

fact%more%productive,%as%such%it%is%recommended%to%maintain%a%group%of%less%than%

30%individuals.%Other%best%practices%include:%Soliciting%the%public%for%comments;%

seeking%international%acceptance;%and%working%with%SDOs%to%promulgate%

standards.%%

•%QUESTION:%Would%partnership%with%a%standards%development%organization%

(SDO)%in%which%the%standard%is%issued%by%the%SDO%present%any%obstacle%for%

participation%by%a%broad%range%of%forensics%science%stakeholders%in%the%

development%of%a%standard?%If%so,%why?%%

ANSWER:%Partnership%with%an%SDO%or%establishing%standards%following%

international%standard%setting%protocols%are%absolutely%essential.%For%broad%range%

forensic%science%stakeholders%there%are%only%minimal%obstacles%(membership%

fees,%standard%costs,%etc.),%none%of%which%are%insurmountable.%%

•%QUESTION:%Would%partnership%with%an%SDO%in%which%the%standard%is%issued%by%

the%SDO%present%any%obstacle%to%broad%adoption%of%a%standard?%If%so,%why?%%

ANSWER:%No,%in%fact%it%would%actually%help%with%the%broad%range%adoption%and%

enforcement%of%the%standard.%Once%standards%are%generated,%accrediting%bodies%

can%use%them%in%assessing%laboratories%conformance%with%internationally%

recognized%standards.%%

•%QUESTION:%Would%a%feePbased%membership%model%run%through%a%notPforPprofit%

organization%(similar%to%the%National%Conference%of%Weights%and%Measures)%

present%a%significant%obstacle%for%participation?%%

ANSWER:%Yes.%The%National%Conference%of%Weights%and%Measures%has%an%entire%

economy%that%is%based%on%an%extremely%large%consumer%base%which%corresponds%

to%minimal%costs.%Forensic%Science%organizations%are%primarily%an%inherent%

Governmental%function%and%the%consumer%base%is%relatively%small%in%comparison,%

which%would%result%in%prohibitive%costs%to%participate.%The%fee%based%membership%

will%automatically%result%in%exclusion%of%lower%funded%organizations,%which%in%turn%

will%result%in%bias.%A%truly%nonPbiased%system%must%not%be%influenced%by%things%

such%as%available%financial%resources.%As%such,%all%efforts%need%to%be%focused%on%

obtaining%a%steady%reliable%source%of%Federal%funding.%%

•%QUESTION:%If%the%Guidance%Groups%followed%a%feePbased%membership%model,%

are%there%appropriatelyPtiered%systems%for%fees%that%would%prevent%‘‘pricing%out’’%

organizations,%including%individuals?%%

ANSWER:%As%indicated%above,%a%fee%based%system%is%not%recommended%and%

would%be%expected%to%create%a%system%of%the%“haves%and%havePnots”%which%will%

result%in%bias.%However,%should%a%feePbased%membership%model%be%adopted,%

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 318 of 337
Response from Scott Vajdos 

consider%a%tiered%system%for%laboratory%organizations%that%is%based%upon%the%

number%of%proficiency%tested%personnel.%Generally,%larger%organizations%have%

more%available%funding%than%smaller%ones;%this%might%help%to%provide%smaller%

organizations%the%ability%to%participate.%As%for%other%members%such%as%academia,%

consider%establishing%a%flat%minimal%fee%that%would%mimic%that%of%a%small%

laboratory.%It%is%also%not%recommended%to%allow%other%entities%such%as%instrument%

manufacturers%be%able%to%“buy%a%seat”%on%a%SWG%as%it%could%lead%to%additional%

bias.%%

•%QUESTION:%Other%than%a%privatized%model,%are%there%other%means%to%maintain%a%

governance%or%coordinating%body%in%the%long%term?%If%possible,%please%give%

examples%of%existing%structures%and%their%positive%and%negative%attributes.%%

ANSWER:%As%indicated%in%the%introduction%above,%the%best%model%is%to%restructure%

the%current%SWGs%under%NIST’s%umbrella%rather%than%create%a%new%model.%It%is%

recommended%that%NIST%consider%strengthening%the%existing%SWG%model%by%

addressing%the%aforementioned%criticisms.%NIST%could%simply%absorb%the%current%

SWGs%(name%included)%and%establish%a%governing%body%which%provides:%a%clear%

source%of%annual%Federal%funding;%shared%resources;%uniform%membership%

standards;%uniform%bylaws;%mandated%use%of%Standard%Developing%Organizations%

(SDO);%overall%administration;%etc.%%

2.)Impact)of)Guidance)Groups)

•%QUESTION:%Given%that%the%Guidance%Groups%cannot%mandate%the%adoption%of%

standards,%what%can%they%do%to%best%leverage%their%position%and%encourage%

adoption?%To%what%extent%does%membership%and%transparency%impact%possible%

adoption%of%guidance%at%the%state%and%local%level?%%

ANSWER:%SWGs%need%to%first%seek%out%international%acceptance%in%the%form%of%

converting%their%recommendations%to%a%standard%using%either%an%SDO%or%an%

equivalent%process.%International%accreditation%would%then%play%the%next%biggest%

role%in%enforcing%the%standards.%There%is%a%clause%in%ISO/IEC%17025%under%section%

5.4.2%Selections%of%methods%that%includes%language%that%indicates%that%“Methods%

published%in%international,%regional%or%national%standards%shall%preferably%be%

used%and%when%the%customer%does%not%specify%the%method%to%be%used,%the%

laboratory%shall%select%appropriate%methods%that%have%been%published%either%in%

international,%regional%or%national%standards,%or%by%reputable%technical%

organization...”%Accrediting%bodies%could%then%assess%laboratories%against%this%

clause.%In%addition,%adoption%of%SWG%standards%by%the%National%Commission%on%

Forensic%Sciences%(NCFS)%would%go%a%long%way%to%promulgate%forensic%science%

best%practices.%The%NCFS%as%chartered%would%carry%a%wide%variety%of%stakeholders%

to%include%the%legal%community,%forensic%science%practitioners,%educators,%etc.%

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 319 of 337
Response from Scott Vajdos 

NIST%should%also%consider%a%significant%effort%to%establish%an%outreach%committee%

tasked%with%regularly%engaging%forensic%science%organizational%meetings,%legal%

community,%law%enforcement%community%and%discipline%specific%groups%like%IAI%

and%AFTE.%%

•%QUESTION:%Are%there%best%practices%or%models%to%consider%with%regard%to%a%

structure%that%would%encourage%effective%communication%with%the%scientific%

community%to%explore%research%gaps%and%aid%in%recognizing%research%priorities?%%

ANSWER:%The%best%way%to%proceed%is%to%continue%to%have%an%open%dialogue%with%

the%forensic%science%community,%academia,%legal%and%law%enforcement%

communities%to%continue%to%dream%up%basic%research%and%further%develop%

applied%research.%The%open%dialogue%can%be%best%achieved%through%the%use%of%

interactive%websites,%webinars,%and%participation%in%forensic%science%meetings.%

These%venues%provide%the%core%structure%to%ask%those%questions%on%what%would%

help%the%community%move%forward.%The%SWG%groups%are%also%an%excellent%source%

for%research%direction,%especially%for%applied%research.%Under%the%structured%

bylaws%overseen%by%%NIST,%the%mission%of%developing%research%objectives%should%

be%added%to%each%group.%In%order%to%build%on%disciplines%with%related%

methodology%or%expertise,%research%objectives%could%then%be%brought%to%the%

executive%board%of%SWG%chairs/members%for%review.%%

•%QUESTION:%How%should%NIST%researchers%engage%with%the%Guidance%Groups%in%

support%of%the%goal%to%strengthen%the%nation’s%use%of%forensic%science%by%

supporting%the%development%and%propagation%of%forensic%science%consensus%

documentary%standards,%identifying%needs%of%forensic%science%research%and%

measurement%standards,%and%verifying%the%scientific%basis%exists%for%each%

discipline?%

ANSWER:%NIST%should%primarily%provide%expertise%in%the%field%of%statistical%

determinations%and%traceability%of%reference%materials.%NIST%is%the%resident%

expert%in%these%two%scientific%areas%and%their%assistance%would%be%critical%to%the%

success%of%the%SWGs.%%

3.)Representation)in)the)Guidance)Groups)

•%QUESTION:%Given%the%diverse,%multiPsector%set%of%stakeholders%in%forensic%

science,%representation%in%Guidance%Groups%must%be%carefully%balanced%and%

inclusive.%Who%are%the%stakeholders%who%should%be%represented%on%the%Guidance%

Groups?%

ANSWER:%First%and%foremost,%the%forensic%science%practitioners%need%to%have%the%

largest%voice.%Forensic%science%practitioners%have%the%necessary%education,%skills,%

training%and%experience%to%provide%the%most%valuable%contribution.%Academia%

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 320 of 337
Response from Scott Vajdos 

would%have%a%secondary%role;%they%provide%valuable%insight%that%is%critical%to%the%

process.%It%is%recommended%that%the%selected%individuals%represent%a%larger,%

multiPagency%forensic%science%organization%to%assist%with%cross%communication.%

As%stated%before,%international%participation%is%highly%recommended%as%it%

provides%more%weight%when%standards%are%being%developed%globally.%It%is%not%

necessary%to%permanently%staff%each%SWG%with%legal%professionals,%statisticians,%

etc.,%as%they%would%only%be%required%on%an%as%needed%or%invited%basis.%

Commercial%entities%should%not%be%involved%in%the%SWGs%because%of%the%potential%

for%undue%influence%in%favor%of%their%commercial%products.%That%said,%this%would%

not%prevent%commercial%entities%the%ability%to%provide%input%during%SWG%public%

comments%periods%and%to%join%a%particular%SDO%so%that%they%could%be%part%of%the%

process%of%developing%standards.%%

•%QUESTION:%What%steps%can%NIST%take%to%ensure%appropriately%broad%

representation%within%the%Guidance%Groups?%

ANSWER:%The%most%effective%step%is%to%establish%standardized%bylaws%which%

include%the%makeup%of%the%membership%and%rules%with%how%members%are%

recommended%and%chosen.%%

•%QUESTION:%What%does%balanced%representation%mean%and%how%can%it%be%

achieved?%

ANSWER:%To%obtain%balanced%representation,%stakeholders%must%first%be%sought%

out%and%identified.%Then,%members%need%to%be%sought%that%capture%the%majority%

of%the%stakeholders%in%the%appropriate%ratios,%much%like%what%is%done%with%the%

formation%of%SDO%committees.%It%is%also%important%to%cap%the%group%size%to%

maximize%productivity,%which%is%recommended%at%less%than%30%individuals.%%

•%QUESTION:%What%is%the%best%way%to%engage%organizations%playing%a%role%in%

forensic%science,%standards%development%and%practice?%%

ANSWER:%Creating%a%transparent%openlyPpublicized%system%that%provides%the%

ability%for%stakeholders%to%become%active%members%of%the%organization%and%offers%

many%opportunities%for%input%into%the%process.%Requests%for%community%input%

should%move%past%drafted%standards%and%also%include%ideas%for%future%standards,%

projects,%research%and%measurement%of%how%community%needs%are%met.%%

•%QUESTION:%How%should%interested%parties%who%may%not%be%direct%participants%

in%Guidance%Groups,%engage%in%a%meaningful%way%to%have%an%impact%on%issues%in%

front%of%the%Guidance%Groups?%%

ANSWER:%At%a%minimum,%SWGs%must%provide%public%comment%opportunities%to%

allow%interested%parties%the%ability%to%comment%on%proposed%standards%–%much%

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 321 of 337
Response from Scott Vajdos 

like%the%Federal%Register%process.%Then,%it%is%recommended%that%documents%be%

presented%to%an%SDO%or%other%SDO%compatible%process.%The%reason%the%SDO%

process%is%being%recommended%as%secondary%is%that%SDOs%are%typically%only%open%

to%members%of%that%organization,%thus%limiting%the%standardization%process%to%a%

smaller%group%of%stakeholders.%In%summary,%it%is%recommended%that%both%

processes%be%incorporated%to%allow%the%ability%for%all%interested%parties%to%have%a%

voice.%

•%QUESTION:%To%what%extent%and%in%what%ways%must%the%Federal%government,%as%

well%as%state,%local,%tribal%and%territorial%governments%be%involved%at%the%outset?%%

ANSWER:%Efforts%should%be%made%to%ensure%that%entities%from%all%levels%are%

included.%However,%care%must%be%taken%as%to%not%“stack%the%deck”%by%creating%an%

inequity%between%larger%and%smaller%organizational%participation.%%

4.)Scope)of)the)Guidance)Groups)

•%QUESTION:%Should%all%of%the%current%forensic%Scientific%Working%Groups%(SWGs)%

transition%to%Guidance%Groups?%%

ANSWER:%As%indicated%in%the%introduction,%it%is%strongly%recommended%that%the%

current%SWGs%“carry%the%torch”%forward%and%be%the%building%blocks%that%NIST%

further%refines%throughout%this%process.%It%is%not%understood%why%NIST%proposes%

to%establish%Guidance%Groups%when%such%a%viable%and%valuable%option%already%

exists%in%the%SWGs.%SWGs%already%have%a%wellPestablished%history%and%are%highly%

recognized%by%academia,%private%industry,%courts%and%the%domestic%and%

international%forensic%science%community.%The%most%productive%SWGs%already%

have%nearly%two%decades%of%experience%and%standards%that%have%been%developed,%

why%start%over?%Lastly,%there%is%at%least%one%SWG%that%will%remain%a%SWG%as%a%

result%of%a%Congressional%mandate.%It%seems%that%it%would%cause%unnecessary%

confusion%to%have%any%SWG%continue%to%operate%as%a%SWG%while%the%other%SWGs%

are%dispersed%into%Guidance%Groups.%Why%not%simply%transition%all%existing%SWGs%

under%NIST’s%umbrella%and%allow%them%to%keep%their%name%while%providing%more%

oversight%and%administration?%%

•%QUESTION:%Are%there%broader%groupings%of%forensic%science%disciplines%that%

could%form%the%basis%of%Guidance%Groups%than%the%current%group%of%twentyPone%

SWGs?%If%so,%what%are%those%groupings?%

ANSWER:%Yes,%several%groups%do%share%similar%methodology%and%therefore%could%

share%resources.%However,%typically%when%groupings%are%established,%discipline%

specific%issues%fall%victim%to%competing%priorities.%Whereas%if%dedicated%and%

focused%forensic%disciplines%are%kept%separate,%they%have%a%much%better%chance%

of%proactively%reacting%to%the%community%needs.%In%SWGDRUG,%we%have%found%it%

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 322 of 337
Response from Scott Vajdos 

beneficial%to%have%a%member%with%expertise%in%Toxicology,%since%the%

methodologies%are%related.%This%has%allowed%us%to%focus%on%seized%drug%issues%but%

gain%a%different%perspective.%%

•%QUESTION:%Is%there%a%need%for%a%cross%disciplinary%functional%approach%(i.e.%

statistical%analysis)%and%how%could%the%Guidance%Groups%be%structured%to%best%

address%that%need?%%

ANSWER:%Yes,%the%governance%body%must%address%the%question%of%“statistics”%

across%all%forensic%disciplines.%NIST%is%the%resident%expert%when%it%comes%to%

statistics,%maybe%they%could%establish%a%working%group%that%is%assigned%to%support%

the%work%of%all%SWGs.%%

•%QUESTION:%To%what%extent%do%Guidance%Groups%need%to%support%different%

forensic%science%disciplines%differently%from%one%another?%%

ANSWER:%It%is%fundamental%to%the%success%of%the%SWGs%that%difference%be%

allowed.%However,%it%is%incumbent%upon%NIST%or%the%governance%board%to%

attempt%to%standardize%the%forensic%science%across%disciplines%to%the%extent%

possible.%The%governance%board%would%do%this%by%defining%requirements%as%

indicated%above.%

Thank%you%for%your%time.%

Sincerely,%

Scott%Vajdos%

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 323 of 337
Response from Jennifer Valdez 

Susan&Ballou

Office&of&Special&Programs

NIST

100&Bureau&Drive,&Mailstop&8102

Gaithersburg,&MD,&20899

Ms.&Ballou,

Thank&you&for&the&opportunity&to&comment&on&the&development&of&discipline&specific&guidance&

organizations&(GOs)&for&forensic&science.&&I&am truly&only&familiar&with&SWGDRUG,&so&my&comments&will&

be&confined&to&that&area.&&I&am&sure&the&other&SWGs&are&similar&but&I&have¬&worked&with&them.&&Also&

please&understand&that&I&am¬¤tly&nor&have&I&ever&been&a&member&of&SWGDRUG&and&do¬&

personally&know&anyone on&their&core&committee.&

The&first&recommendation&is&that&the¤t&SWGs&be&incorporated&into&the&new&GOs&rather&

than&reinventing&the&groups.&&These&groups&have&worked&diligently&for&many&years&to&put&out&

recommendations&and&are&made&up&of&a&diverse&group&of&scientists&from&all&over&the&world,&including&

several&from&your&own&organization.&&&These&individuals&have,&with&no&authority&to&implement&

requirements&and&no&funding&to&speak&of,&developed&guidelines&for&their&specific&disciplines&knowing&that&

the&reward is&only&the&satisfaction&of&knowing&they&have&collaborated&with&international&specialists&in&

their&area and&developed&guidelines&that&are&truly&the&best&for&the&application&of&science&to&forensics.&&

This&alone&should&demonstrate&the&unbiased&nature&of&the&endorsements already&made and&the&

individuals&who&have&joined&to&make&them.&

Partnership&with&an&SDO&for&these&groups&would&improve&the&likelihood&of&adoption&across&the&

disciplines.&&A&feeRbased&model&is&appropriate,&however,&if&there&is&any possibility&this&could&be&added&to&

a&fee&labs&already&pay&to&an&organization&(eg,&ASCLDRLab or&ILAC)&this&would&greatly&increase&the&

possibility&it&could&be&achieved.&&Finding&new&funding&is&extremely&challenging&in&a&budget,&whereas&

increasing funding&for&a&fee&already&accepted&as&a&valid&expense&is&fairly&straightforward.&&I&would&also&

encourage&that&it&be&a&labRwide&fee&system,¬&a&perRdiscipline&system,&which&would&lead&to&the&“less&

glamorous”&disciplines&likely¬&receiving&the&money&to&participate.

I&firmly&believe&the&new&GOs&should&be&restricted&to&scientists,&both&in&and&out&of&forensic&

science.&&Enlarging&it&to&include&legal&and&government&representatives&with&no&experience&in&applying&

science&will&simply&make&this&another&nonRfunctional&bureaucracy&making&mandates&that&are&impractical,&

years&behind&the&methodology,&without&any&clear&direction,&and&nearly&impossible&to&understand.&&I&also&

strongly&encourage&the retention&of&the&international&makeup&of&the&SWGs.&&This&will&prevent&the&

egocentric&vision&I&often¬e&in&national&policy&making.&&&

I&also&promote&the&creation&of&subgroups&within&the&GO&that&work&equally&represented&across&all&

disciplines,&such&as&those&working&on&uncertainty&of&measurement,&error&rates,&and&other&concepts&that&

are&difficult&to&apply&to&the&many&diverse&areas&of&forensic&science.&&That&said,&I&think&it&is&still&very&

important&for&each&discipline&to&maintain&their&own&GO&with&specialized&knowledge&and&

recommendations&for&that&area.

I&appreciate&the&opportunity to&comment&and&thank&you&for&your&time.

Jennifer&Valdez

Scottsdale&PD&Crime&Lab&Controlled&Substances

Scottsdale,&AZ

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 324 of 337
Response from Rigo Vargas 

NIST Response

1. Structure of Guidance Groups:

Given!the!scope!and!principles!of!the!Guidance!Groups!outlined!here,!what!are!structural!models!that!

could!best!support!the!Guidance!Groups,!taking!into!account!the!technical,!policy,!legal,!and!operational!

aspects!of!forensic!science?

A structural model not based on the private sector business industry is necessary. The majority 

of forensic work is performed by analysts employed by law enforcement agencies. These law 

enforcement agencies are funded by federal, state, and local government not by the sale of 

products, goods, or services. Therefore it would be a huge disservice to the forensic community 

to force them into a model created for the business industry. 

What!elements!or!models!would!facilitate!the!sharing!of!best!practices!and!uniform!practices!across!the!

Guidance!Groups?

Standardizing all of the SWG groups could be a start. Having uniform bylaws and procedures 

would make it easier for groups to share their knowledge (I thought the SWG groups were 

already in the process of doing this). Technical and administrative review of best practices by 

interdisciplinary, yet closely related, groups would help the sharing of information. For 

example, a best practice created by the firearms group could be vetted by members of the latent 

print group and vice versa. 

Are!there!public!policies!or!private!sector!initiatives!in!other!countries!that!have!successfully!

strengthened!the!nation's!use!of!forensic!science!by!supporting!the!development!and!propagation!of!

forensic!science!consensus!documentary!standards,!identifying!needs!of!forensic!science!research!and!

measurement!standards,!and!verifying!the!scientific!basis!exists!for!each!discipline?!If!so,!what!are!they?

This examiner has no knowledge of policies in other countries. 

What!are!the!elements!which!make!existing!forensic!Scientific!Working!Groups!(SWGs)!successful?!

Money: Funding that allows the SWG members to meet in person twice a year to discuss, write, 

re-work, vet, and finalize necessary standards. 

Dedication: All SWG members are dedicated to the advancement of their science, and 

accomplish this free of charge and mostly without thanks. 

Compromise: There are many brilliant examiners in the world, but not all of them have the 

ability to work well with others. A successful SWG group has members who speak their minds, 

but also listen. Who argue their point, but can also see the other point of view. Who know a lot, 

but realize they don’t know everything. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 325 of 337
Response from Rigo Vargas 

Smaller Groups: A smaller group of examiners (3-6) assigned a particular task get a lot more 

accomplished than an entire room. In the early days of SWGDOC all of the members would 

meet in a large room and attempt to wordsmith a document. After hours of discussion and 

arguing members would get frustrated, get quiet, or zone out completely. When the decision was 

made to break the meeting into separate smaller groups that’s when the work started to flow. 

Are!there!examples!of!best!practices!in!specific!SWGs!that!ought!to!be!replicated!in!Guidance!Groups?!If!

so,!what!are!they?

The system in SWGDOC has worked well for many years. The SWGDOC members meet twice 

a year at the same hotel in Woodbridge, VA. The hotel offers the group ample space in their 

meeting room all week and free wireless internet service. At any one meeting more than half of 

the members are from out of town and stay at the hotel, the rest commute locally. The entire 

membership meets the first day (Monday) to discuss any broad topics or to vote on any pending 

issues, but then break out into committees consisting of 4 or 5 examiners. It is in these smaller, 

more manageable groups that the bulk of the work gets completed. Each committee is assigned a 

Presiding Officer who oversees the meeting. The Presiding Officer will also coordinate remarks, 

praises, and criticisms when the work product goes out for comment. A committee may have 

one or multiple tasks to complete during the week. The assigned task(s) usually involves the 

creation of a new standard or the revision of an existing one. When completed, the finished 

product will be presented to the entire SWGDOC membership for a vote. If it is accepted it will 

then be posted on the SWGDOC website for public comment. 

Would!partnership!with!a!standards!development!organization!(SDO)!in!which!the!standard!is!issued!by!

the!SDO!present!any!obstacle!for!participation!by!a!broad!range!of!forensics!science!stakeholders in!the!

development!of!a!standard?!!!

It would definitely be an obstacle. 

If!so,!why?

1) Since SDO’s are membership based an examiner would have to pay a fee to become a

member and participate. It has already been shown that many examiners balk at this idea and 

will not join. 2) SDO’s copyright the standards they produce making it illegal for examiners to 

openly share the standards in their field. This smacks in the face of science which should be 

open and transparent. 3) SDO’s charge a fee for copies of the standards they publish. If an 

examiner is in court and a judge wants a copy of a standard, it would be detrimental to tell him 

he needed to go to an SDO website and purchase a standard for himself. The same goes for 

attorneys. 4) It’s ridiculous for a scientific group to spend an exorbitant amount of time and 

energy to create a product and then turn around and surrender the intellectually property rights of 

that product to an SDO who in turn copyrights the product and makes the creators of said 

product pay for it. 5) SDO’s have no membership criteria; anyone who pays their fee can 

become a member. This opens the door for criminals, charlatans, and the untrained to have a say

concerning a product they have no business being involved in. 6) SDO’s can have deleterious 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 326 of 337
Response from Rigo Vargas 

voting criteria for their members. One example is ASTM’s “redundant interest” which is a 

“member of a committee whose voting interest is already represented on the committee by an 

official voter” In laymen’s terms it means if ten forensic scientists work in a laboratory only one 

of those scientists is allowed a vote when it comes to adopting standards. This alone is enough 

to deter most forensic scientists from joining an SDO. Who would pay money to join an 

organization that publishes standards for their field when they cannot even comment on those 

standards as they’re being created?? Lastly, since nearly all of the SWG groups self-publish 

their standards, forcing them into an SDO could have catastrophic consequences. Imagine a 

SWG group working for months on a standard. They go through the discussions, the research, 

the arguing, the frustration, and finally accept a finished product. NOW they have to submit 

their work product, a work product they have bled for, to an SDO so it can go through another 

vetting process. This SDO may very well contain members who do not have what’s best for 

their discipline at heart. It may contain members not qualified to perform the work. Or maybe it 

has members who think they are qualified, but who have no formal training. Now their work 

product comes back to them completely shredded by members who don’t care, who want to halt 

the process, or who were simply too inept to grasp the technical aspect of the document. How 

many SWG members (or guidance group members) would put up with this for very long? The 

answer is none. 

Would!partnership!with!an!SDO!in!which!the!standard!is!issued!by!the!SDO!present!any!obstacle!to!

broad!adoption!of!a!standard?!If!so,!why?

Adoption by whom? It has been this examiners experience that the courts do not care how 

standards are produced or published as long as the discipline in question has, and utilizes, 

standards. 

As far as the greater forensic community is concerned adoption would be much more difficult. 

As stated above nearly all of the existing SWGs currently self-publish their standards. If they 

were forced to give up their work product to an SDO and then have to pay for it, it’s doubtful 

any would be accepting. 

Would!a!feeFbased!membership!model!run!through!a!notFforFprofit!organization!(similar!to!the!National!

Conference!of!Weights!and!Measures)!present!a!significant!obstacle!for!participation?

It will be hard to persuade examiners to add another fee-based organization to their annual 

budget. It will be even more difficult if said organization has no membership criteria and allows 

anyone to join. If, however, legitimate, fully trained, examiners are allowed to create 

membership criteria (as does the American Academy of Forensic Science) there could be a slim 

chance. In the case of questioned document examination (QDE), of which this examiner is 

familiar, there is a large contingent of people whom are not properly trained yet pretend to be 

document examiners. If these charlatans were allowed to become members, NO legitimate 

document examiner would join. If that happened the organization would not have any of the 

legitimate stakeholders and therefore could not function. Also, if this theoretical organization 

required that laboratories, like the FBI’s QDE section for instance, only have one vote, even 

though they have over 20 examiners, no legitimate examiner would join. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 327 of 337
Response from Rigo Vargas 

If!the!Guidance!Groups!followed!a!feeFbased!membership!model,!are!there!appropriatelyFtiered!systems!

for!fees!that!would!prevent!“pricing!out”!organizations,!including!individuals?

Imposing any fee will be a problem. 

Other!than!a!privatized!model,!are!there!other!means!to!maintain!a!governance!or!coordinating!body!in!

the!long!term?!If!possible,!please!give!examples!of!existing!structures!and!their!positive!and!negative!

attributes.

The SWG groups, as they are now are a very functioning group. These are dedicated, 

hardworking examiners who devote enormous amounts of time and energy to their discipline 

free of charge. Nearly all of the SWG’s self-publish their standards, they always have, and 

they’ve never had issues with acceptance. A few include the Scientific Working Group for 

Shoeprint and Tire Tread Evidence (SWGTREAD), the Scientific Working Group on Friction 

Ridge Analysis, Study, and Technology (SWGFAST), the Scientific Working Group for 

Firearms and Toolmarks (SWGGUN), and the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis 

Methods (SWGDAM). The Scientific Working Group for Forensic Document Examination 

(SWGDOC) created or updated every standard in the QDE field and only used ASTM (SDO) as 

its publishing vehicle. After years of creating standards only to give them over to ASTM and 

lose their rights to them, and then have to pay for them, the members decided to self-publish 

their standards. 

A negative of the SWG’s is their over-all lack of continuity. Each SWG functions as a single 

entity with its own bylaws, membership criteria, and voting rules. It would be easier to 

streamline the existing SWG’s and get them all on the same page than it would be to create 20 

something new organizations or force the current SWG members into an SDO. 

2. Impact of Guidance Groups:

Given!that!the!Guidance!Groups!cannot!mandate!the!adoption!of!standards,!what!can!they!do!to!best!

leverage!their!position!and!encourage!adoption?!

These groups will HAVE to have the support of their respective forensic communities. Having 

qualified examiners participate in the process will help persuade other qualified examiners to 

accept the work product. If organizations in a forensic field adopt the standards the more likely 

they will be accepted by their members. 

To!what!extent!does!membership!and!transparency!impact!possible!adoption!of!guidance!at!the!state!

and!local!level?

Membership is important because without enough stakeholders involved there will be no 

acceptance. 

Transparency is important because forensic examiners want to see the standards during their 

creation and be able to comment on them as they see fit. 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 328 of 337
Response from Rigo Vargas 

Are!there!best!practices!or!models!to!consider!with!regard!to!a!structure!that!would!encourage!effective!

communication!with!the!scientific!community!to!explore!research!gaps!and!aid!in!recognizing!research!

priorities?

None that this examiner is aware of. 

How!should!NIST!researchers!engage!with!the!Guidance!Groups!in!support!of!the!goal!to!strengthen!the!

nation's!use!of!forensic!science!by!supporting!the!development!and!propagation!of!forensic!science

consensus!documentary!standards,!identifying!needs!of!forensic!science!research!and!measurement!

standards,!and!verifying!the!scientific!basis!exists!for!each!discipline?

Having NIST researchers become members of specific SWG (or guidance) groups. Once 

members they can sit in on meetings, participate in discussions, and make recommendations for 

future plans. If a researcher is a member of a particular SWG group he or she will have vested 

interest in seeing that group succeed and accomplish its objectives. 

NIST researchers should contact forensic scientist actively performing research projects. By 

contacting these examiners the researchers can gain knowledge about these projects, ask 

questions about the goals of the research, and give advice on how to better implement the 

research. 

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups:

Who!are!the!stakeholders!who!should!be!represented!on!the!Guidance!Groups?!

The majority of the stakeholders should be legitimate, fully trained examiners, currently working 

in their respective field. Some form of criteria regarding training, experience, and knowledge 

must be considered for membership. These majority stakeholders should have final say on any 

and all decisions concerning the standards they write, the research they conduct, and the treatise 

they produce. They are the real players in the game here, they do the work, they are the experts 

and it’s their reputations on the line when their results are questioned in court or otherwise. 

The next level of stakeholder should include those in the legal and academic fields e.g. attorney’s 

judges, professors, and researchers. 

A third level of stakeholder should include those individuals with an indirect interest such as 

vendors, instrument technicians, students, administrators, and the general public. 

What!steps!can!NIST!take!to!ensure!appropriately!broad!representation!within!the!Guidance!Groups?!

The major stakeholders could be divided into Federal, State, and local examiners. The same 

could be done with the lower tiered stakeholders. Membership should represent geographic 

areas all over the country. Members from other countries should be encouraged to join and or 

participate. 

What!does!balanced!representation!mean!and!how!can!it!be!achieved?

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 329 of 337
Response from Rigo Vargas

Equal numbers of Federal, State, or Local examiners. Equal numbers of examiners from across 

the country. 

What!is!the!best!way!to!engage!organizations!playing!a!role!in!forensic!science,!standards!development!

and!practice?

First and foremost the standards development organization has to attract legitimate, trained, 

competent examiners in its representative field. If that is done the forensic science organizations 

will become engaged and so will the forensic examiners in practice. Forensic professionals will 

not participate in a group wherein they do not have the final word on the product they produce. 

They also will not participate in a group consisting of untrained, illegitimate examiners. 

How!should!interested!parties!who!may!not!be!direct!participants!in!Guidance!Groups,!engage!in!a!

meaningful!way!to!have!an!impact!on!issues!in!front!of!the!Guidance!Groups?

Stay abreast of information posted on the guidance group website. Get on the email list for said 

guidance group. Participate in any online discussions. 

To!what!extent!and!in!what!ways!must!the!Federal!government,!as!well!as!state,!local,!tribal!and!

territorial!governments!be!involved!at!the!outset?

Federal funding for the groups. The state and local governments must recognize the importance 

of these groups and continue to allow their employee’s to participate. 

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups:

Should!all!of!the!current!forensic!Scientific!Working!Groups!(SWGs)!transition!to!Guidance!Groups?

That decision should be left up to the individual SWG groups. However, if the future guidance 

groups, or whatever they will be called, offer a solid platform for creating standards that doesn’t 

disrupt or destroy their current standards production, each SWG group should want to transition. 

Are!there!broader!groupings!of!forensic!science!disciplines!that!could!form!the!basis!of!Guidance!Groups!

than!the!current!group!of!twentyFone!SWGs?!!If!so,!what!are!those!groupings?!!

Possibly, but this examiner is not familiar enough with the other SWGs to comment. 

Is!there!a!need!for!a!cross!disciplinary!functional!approach!(i.e.!statistical!analysis)!and!how!could!the!

Guidance!Groups!be!structured!to!best!address!that!need?

I do not believe there is a need for such an approach, but an approach could look like this. 

Groups could be separated into Analytical and Impression forensic groups. The analytical group 

could include; Drugs, Toxicology, Implied Consent, et al. And the Impression group could 

include; Questioned Documents, Firearms, Latent Prints, and Shoeprint and Tire Tread. If this 

occurred these groups would still have to be broken down into sub-groups. This would be 

necessary because even though they share some similarities each discipline is still unique and has 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 330 of 337
Response from Rigo Vargas 

its own special needs and nuances. Having three separate groups come together at one large 

meeting would be a waste of time. 

The more closely related disciplines, like the Impression Groups (as discussed earlier) could be 

involved in cross disciplinary technical review of work product. For example the members of 

the Latent Print group would be allowed to have technical input on a standard created by the 

Questioned Document group. The Questioned Document group, however, would have the final 

say on the end product. The unrelated disciplines could be allowed input on each other’s work 

product in an administrative capacity, e.g. spelling, grammar, clarity. 

To!what!extent!do!Guidance!Groups!need!to!support!different!forensic!science!disciplines!differently!

from!one!another?

There should be support for sure, but to what extent is a subjective question. This examiner 

envisions the process like this: 

The more closely related disciplines, like the Impression Groups (as discussed earlier) could be 

involved in cross disciplinary technical review of work product. For example the members of 

the Latent Print group would be allowed to have technical input on a standard created by the 

Questioned Document group. The Questioned Document group, however, would have the final 

say on the end product. The unrelated disciplines could be allowed input on each other’s work 

product in an administrative capacity, e.g. spelling, grammar, clarity. 

Rigo!Vargas

Questioned!Documents!Section!Chief

Mississippi!Crime!Laboratory!(Gulf!Coast!Regional!Lab)

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 331 of 337
Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 332 of 337
Response from Victor W. Weedn 

Program Manager Ballou, 

I am personally writing in response to the Federal Register notice eliciting comment for possible 

models for the administration and support of discipline-specific guidance groups for forensic 

science. 

1. There is a strong sentiment that the Guidance Groups must be predominantly

practitioners. While agree with this basic view, I believe that there is room for academicians, 

basic scientists, and a public at-large member. I think the inclusion would permit expression of a 

greater diversity of perspective and that the Groups would enjoy greater credibility, at least from 

outside entities. I note that the Leahy legislative proposal drew strong arguments based upon the 

NAS report to include strong representation for basic scientists--I think there should be some 

deference to this, but they should be a distinct minority. I do not think this is accomplished 

through the presence of open meetings with observers or with guests. You might give some 

consideration to voting and non-voting members. 

2. Since community buy-in is vital to this initiative, I think there should be formal representation

from relevant professional associations, where appropriate. SWGs are inherently self appointed 

blue ribbon panels, where professional associations are elected representative bodies--including 

formal representatives that can be terminated at the will of the association will help ensure 

community input and democratic process. Then regardless, of that representation, that such 

organizations should be specifically sought out for input, rather than mere federal register 

notices. 

3. I have noted on several occasions that some SWG leadership at times have acted in haste to

put out products because their funding sources were concerned about seeming inaction of the 

SWGs. I think this is a mistake and I would urge you to recognize that consensus standard 

setting requires time to hash through things and vet ideas and wording. As painful and slow, a 

deliberative process can achieve a higher quality product. A rushed bad recommendation or 

standard can be worse than no recommendation or standard--although the federal agency may be 

pleased that a product was produced. 

4. I strongly urge you to distinguish recommendations, normative guidelines, minimal standards,

and best practices. I believe these are often confused. Just because someone thinks something 

should be done, doesn't mean that all agree with the idea at all times or that it is financially 

possible. In this context, I advocate standards over standardization, as I think the latter is 

stultifying and the former permits individual lab creativity and advancement. 

Sincerely, 

Victor W. Weedn, MD, JD 

-- 

Victor'W.'Weedn,'MD,'JD'

Professor'and'Chair'

Department'of'Forensic'Sciences'

George'Washington'University'

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 333 of 337
Response from Alicia Wilcox 

1"

Possible Models for the Administration and Support of Discipline Specific Guidance Groups 

for Forensic Science

Structure of Guidance Groups

Who are the stake holders who should be included?

I feel the most important decision that NIST-DOJ will make when setting up the Guidance Groups is who 

they choose to represent the disciplines within forensic science. The Guidance Groups will set up Federal 

standards, but to be broadly successful in strengthening forensic science, local and state forensic science 

practitioners, researchers and interested parties need to be included. Having practitioners included will be 

essential for broad based acceptance and implementation of standards. No single agency or jurisdiction 

works in isolation of another. Real progress will only happen when there is a majority “buy-in”. 

Academic researchers will also be essential to the success of Guidance Groups. The vast majority of 

practitioners do not have the time or support to conduct research or keep up to date with publications 

outside the traditional forensic science journals. This could be balanced out with academic researchers, 

who may look at the gaps and deficiencies in forensics science in a different light than practitioners

would. 

The Groups should represent legal professionals as well.

Is there a need for a cross-disciplinary approach to the Guidance Groups?

The application of science to legal proceedings to aid the trier of fact can result in any number of physical 

items being included in the definition of forensic evidence. It is for this reason that there are twenty one or 

more scientific working groups (SWGs) representing the different disciplines in forensic science. These 

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 334 of 337
Response from Alicia Wilcox 

2"

disciplines have grown and evolved over time relatively independently. As a practicing footwear and 

fingerprint examiner I often questioned the difference in conclusions between the two disciplines.

I feel that discrete guidance groups are needs for discipline specific areas of forensic science, but there 

should be a strong collaborative connection between these new Guidance Groups. The current SWG 

groups develop guidelines and standards independently from one another. There would be great cohesive 

strength and benefit to the end users (prosecutors, defense teams, judges and juries) if definitions and 

language in standards were united across the Guidance Groups. This could be established by a mandatory 

initiative to choose the same language across the discipline standards. This is something that is not a 

strength of the current SWGs.

What are the elements or models would facilitate the sharing of best practices and uniform

practices across the guidance groups?

Each discipline in forensic science is distinct, has unique challenges and gaps in research. There should be 

a guidance group for each common science category. To be able to best bring the disciplines of forensic 

science together, special members of each guidance group could be responsible for meeting periodically, 

for the purpose of uniformity where appropriate and applicable. During the selection process for 

membership of the guidance groups, DOJ-NIST should consider individuals with qualities and experience 

in bringing groups and ideas together. 

Fee Based Membership

I do not agree that the guidance groups should be fee based and this would appear in conflict with being 

inclusive, sustainable and transparent. The individuals should be chosen for their expertise, balancing 

with other members and for their commitment in effort and longevity to the mission of the Guidance 

Group. For too long many of the disciplines within forensic science have not have the physical or 

financial support to fill gaps in research. These guidance groups need to be financially supported to be 

successful in the long term.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 335 of 337
Response from Alicia Wilcox 

3"

How would Guidance Group Members be selected?

I believe that membership to the guidance groups should follow a competitive process. This would ensure 

the best combination of individuals would make up the group. The selection process should look at 

researchers, criminal justice professionals and practitioners with a broad based knowledge of forensic 

science. Dynamic individuals with broad experience will be able to facilitate the consolidation of forensic 

science standards. This will give strength to forensic science field as a whole.

Transparency and Effective Scientific Community Participation

This is an area, in my opinion, that the current SWG groups need improvement. Transparency has 

improved over the past few years but going forward much can be done in this area. The scientific 

community at large needs to be able to understand the decisions and participate with the Guidance 

Groups. This could be done using collaboration and decision making software for groups. This would 

give a paper trail on input received, how the idea was processed and final outcome. This type of 

transparency would lead to more involvement from the local and state level, which would in turn make 

the Guidance Groups more effective and sustainable.

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 336 of 337
Response from R.K. Wright 

Sent:!Monday,!November!04,!2013!9:30!AM

To:!Ballou,!Susan!M

Subject:!NIST!GUIDELINES!FORENSIC!PATHOLOGY

This!is!more!than!a!terrible!idea,!even!though!it!will!make!my!practice!as!a!criminal!defense!expert!

primarily!much!more!lucrative

R.K.!Wright!MD!

Forensic!Pathologist

Public Comments on NIST Notice of Inquiry NOI Response - Page 337 of 337