1

Scientific & Technical Review 

Panel Final Report for 

2021-S-0014

Standard for Reference 

Collections in Wildlife 

Forensic Biology: Genetics 

and Vertebrate Morphology

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

STRP Final Report

2021-S-0014

Standard for Reference Collections in 

Wildlife Forensic Biology: Genetics and 

Vertebrate Morphology

Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensics Science

September 22, 2021

Disclaimer:

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

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

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

Scientific & Technical Review Panel Members

• Kelly Carrothers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife

• Peter Claussen, South Dakota State University

• Stephanie Domitrovich, State Trial Judge in Erie, PA

• Rachel Houston, Sam Houston State University

• Rebecca Johnson, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History

• Christine Picard, IUPUI

• Adele Quigley-McBride, Duke University
3

Report Summary:

The Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) for “Standard for Reference Collections in 

Wildlife Forensic Biology: Genetics and Vertebrate Morphology” is an independent panel 

appointed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). A STRP is established 

with a range of experts to consider how well a standard meets the needs of the forensic science, 

law enforcement, and legal communities, and to recommend improvements to the standards 

under review. The STRP appreciates the efforts of Barry Baker, Wildlife Forensic Biology 

Subcommittee member, while serving as the subcommittee liaison to this STRP during the 

review process. 

The STRP began its review process with a kickoff meeting on May 26, 2021 and concluded with 

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

Wildlife Forensic Biology Subcommittee. The subcommittee considered those initial comments

from the STRP and incorporated some suggested changes. This report highlights the STRP’s 

opinion on the updated proposed standard.

Report Components:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

results must include the expression and communication of the uncertainties in measurements 

or other results.

1.1. Consensus View - The STRP believes this document has sufficient scientific and 

technical merit, and it will have a positive impact on the field of wildlife 

forensics by standardizing the requirements for addressing acquisition (4.1), 

verification of taxonomic identity (4.2), curation (4.3), and permanent removal 

(4.4) of wildlife forensic reference specimens. The bibliography also provides 

references for standards and scholarly publications that support activities in the 

proposed standard.

1.2. Minority View – None.

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

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

rely heavily on human judgment, whereas others rely more on properly maintained and 

calibrated instruments and statistical analysis of data.
4

2.1. Consensus View - The STRP states that the human factors issues were addressed 

adequately in this proposed standard. This proposed standard establishes the 

necessary process and documentation required for formally developing and 

maintaining a wildlife forensics specimen reference collection. Section 4.2 

(verification of taxonomic identity) of the proposed standard is the area where a 

potential human factors issues could arise. The proposed standard does note that 

not all reference specimens require identification to the species-level to be 

useful, which leaves discretion to the scientist. The proposed standard also 

requires documentation of important processes and data as part of the collection. 

This level of transparency is one way to keep track of any use of discretion and 

to mitigate the impact of human factors. The proposed standard also provides a 

minimum requirement for verifying the taxonomic identity of specimens, which 

does specify some methods that are considered appropriate to meet this 

minimum requirement. There are some limitations to these methods listed, 

though, as noted in the Method Description section of this STRP report, 

specifically—Sections 6.1 and 6.2. 

2.2. Minority View – None.

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

method must include quality assurance procedures to ensure that sufficiently similar results 

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

facilities. 

3.1. Consensus View – The STRP believes the quality assurance measures of the 

proposed standard are sufficient for promoting consistent application of the 

documentation and maintenance of wildlife reference specimens across forensic 

science service providers. There are, however, some problems noted by the 

STRP under the Method Description section of this STRP report that could 

result in some variations in quality (Sections 6.1 and 6.2), but these limitations 

would not result in the quality dropping below the minimum requirements 

described in the proposed standard.

3.2. Minority View – None.

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

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

Requirements, recommendations, or statements of what is permitted or prohibited do not 

belong in this section.

4.1. Consensus View – The revised standard did not accommodate any 

recommendations broader than the previously approved scope which is limited 

to “Genetics and Vertebrate Morphology”. The STRP hereby registers its

concern at the narrowness of the scope which does not reflect the breadth of 

collections (i.e., broader than vertebrates) that are encountered in this field and 

the analytical techniques (i.e., beyond genetics) that may be conducted on them. 
5

4.1.1. Several suggestions offered by the STRP regarding the scope of 

the document were deemed not persuasive or not germane by the subcommittee.

For example, the STRP recommended widening the scope of this document to 

include invertebrates. One of the primary reasons for this is the subcommittee 

will need to write a similar document to cover invertebrates and that document 

would likely be extremely similar, if not identical, to this draft standard. It 

would be inefficient to create a new, extremely similar standard for 

invertebrates and use NIST resources to put that document through the same 

review process when the current document could easily be edited to incorporate 

invertebrate morphology.

4.1.2. As an extension of the recommendation to widen the scope, if the 

subcommittee ultimately decides not to cover invertebrates or other categories 

of flora and fauna, this should ideally be expressed in the scope with a brief 

reason as to why this standard would not be appropriate for those types of 

reference collections (e.g., "...because reference collections for invertebrates 

require substantially different records, methods, and storage" or similar).

4.2. Consensus View - The revised standard did not accommodate any 

recommendations to reflect collections that are not “in-house”, which are 

sometimes used in case work (either as loaned specimens or genetic data not 

registered in house). The STRP would like to note this missed opportunity to 

provide guidance on use of such materials. 

4.3. Consensus View - Further, the revised standard did not accommodate the nonpermanent removal of reference specimens, such as a loan to another institution. 

Since some reference specimens are inherently difficult to obtain, loan systems 

can be a huge part of an ‘in-house’ reference collection. Again, the STRP would 

like to note this missed opportunity to provide guidance on use of such 

materials.

4.4. Minority View – A member of the STRP was pleased when this proposed 

standard was not broadened to encompass wildlife other than vertebrates (i.e.,

invertebrates, plants), as these sub-disciplines are specialized, and this would 

have taken a major revision to include. The need for any further justification for 

the exclusion of other taxa falls outside of the scope of this standard. Further, the 

STRP member serves as a member of a separate subcommittee, that is working 

on developing such standards with invertebrates (DNA, collections, etc.).

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

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

the general public.

5.1. Consensus View – There were several instances where the STRP suggested 

clarifying some of the terms in the document, and the subcommittee did not 
6

incorporate these changes because the wording was drawn directly from the 

OSAC Lexicon. Although the STRP recognizes that consistency within OSAC 

is important, unclear or ambiguous definitions should be edited. The 

subcommittee should revisit the definitions drawn from the OSAC Lexicon and 

consider whether any should be updated or need a sub-definition in the OSAC 

Lexicon.

5.2. Consensus View - In addition, the reference that was altered (“3.3 reference 

specimens”) was edited so that it now seems even less clear. The STRP 

suggested an alternative definition: "Biological specimens of a known identity, 

including whole specimens, parts or derivatives of those specimens, genetic 

material obtained from those specimens, or data relevant to those specimens."

5.3. Minority View – None.

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

the method. Some parts of the method may be performed in alternative ways without 

affecting the quality and consistency of the results. Standards should focus on standardizing 

steps that must be performed consistently across organizations to ensure equivalent results. 

Alternatively, standards can define specific performance criteria that are required to be 

demonstrated and met rather than specifying the exact way a task must be done. For example, 

it may be enough to specify the lower limit for detecting a substance without specifying the 

equipment or method for achieving this limit of detection.

6.1. Consensus View – The STRP suggested editing Clause 4.2.3 (“maintain a 

protocol for verification of taxonomic identity using standardized/published 

morphology or genetic methods that includes one or more of the following:...”). 

There are four suggested methods listed within Clause 4.2.3 and use of only one 

is required to meet the standard. A key issue in forensic science, and one that 

OSAC has asked representatives on STRPs to prioritize, is the validation of 

methods in forensic disciplines. Statements about the adequacy of these 

suggested methods or the potential for error using these methods has not been

addressed in the proposed standard, but it is clear from reading the list that they 

vary in their rigor, with point d) describing a method with less rigor.

6.2. Consensus View - The STRP requests the subcommittee revisit this list and 

include statements about the relative strength of these approaches and/or ask that 

more than one be used and/or require that the method of validation be recorded 

alongside the biological specimen and associated data so that the method used 

can be assessed by persons using the collection in the future. We recognize that 

there are times when d) is the only way to proceed with verifying the taxonomic 

identity of a biological specimen but, at a minimum, the standard should require 

that the managers of the collection be transparent about the methods used.

6.3. Consensus View - The subcommittee chose not to adopt a suggestion that the 

scope of a reference collection, as maintained and written by the laboratory or 
7

entity managing the reference collection, should include a statement or 

statements about what their reference collection does not include. There are 

several reasons for this suggestion.

6.3.1. First, the scope should include descriptions of specimens, data, and 

items that are non-relevant and those that are relevant. Particularly given the 

subcommittee plans to exclude particular flora and fauna from the scope of this 

standard, what is not covered by the proposed standard should be clearly stated. 

6.3.2. Second, clear definitions regarding what is covered by a proposed 

standard assists the person responsible for adhering to the scope when they are 

considering a new entry. 

6.3.3. Third, if reasons for these exclusions are also included, this can be 

particularly informative to people managing the reference collection in the 

future, as the nature of the potential entries change with time. 

6.3.4. Finally, should the responsibility pass on to someone else to decide 

what goes into the collection, the collection will continue to remain consistent if 

what is not included and the reasons are detailed explicitly in the written scope 

of the reference collection.

6.4. Minority View –The subcommittee addressed all relevant methods necessary for 

the reference collections in wildlife forensic biology: genetics and vertebrate 

morphology. The inclusion of multiple methods for identification in 4.2.3 should 

not be elaborated to include relative ‘strengths’ of the methods unless these have 

been explicitly addressed, compared, quantified and published in peer-reviewed 

literature. The subcommittee addressed clearly what is covered and not covered 

by this standard in the Scope section.

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

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

appropriately caveated, and not overreaching.

7.1. Consensus View – The STRP agrees that the statements for reporting results are 

consistent with the scope and purpose of the draft standard. This is not a 

reporting standard; however, there are sufficient documentation requirements in 

the standard that detail how to document the acquisition (4.1), verification of 

taxonomic identity (4.2), curation (4.3), and permanent removal (4.4) of wildlife 

forensic reference specimens.

7.2. Minority View – None.