OSAC Technical Series 0001

Annual Report 

February 2016 – February 2017 

Annual Report Working Group

Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC)

http://dx.doi.org/10.29325/OSAC.TS.0001
This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

OSAC Technical Series 0001

Annual Report 

February 2016 – February 2017 

By

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

Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB) and

The OSAC Editorial Board:

Mary Curtis, Sharon Nakich, Jennifer Marshall

http://dx.doi.org/10.29325/OSAC.TS.0001
ii

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

Message from the Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

The Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC) continues to 

make steady progress toward its goal of achieving technically sound, consensus-based 

standards and guidelines. OSAC committees are working on hundreds of discipline-specific 

and interdisciplinary forensic science standards projects, have posted hundreds of disciplinespecific baseline documents to the OSAC website, and have recently identified 92 research 

and development needs. 

Within the last year, the Forensics Science Standards Board (FSSB) has continued to focus 

on OSAC strategic efforts, and in particular has implemented numerous program changes 

based on feedback from OSAC members and stakeholders. 

The FSSB thanks all OSAC volunteers for their time and input to the OSAC process, and 

also thanks all of the federal, state and local government agencies, academic institutions and 

criminal justice organizations that support the OSAC mission by allowing their staff to 

continue to participate. 

Fig. 1. The FSSB members from top left (as of September 2017): Jose Almirall, William 

Thompson, Richard Vorder Bruegge, Jim Gates, George Herrin, Jeff Salyards, Melissa Gische, 

Ray Wickenheiser, Christopher Plourd, Lucy Davis, Mark Stolorow. Middle left: Sarah

Kerrigan, JoAnn Buscaglia. Bottom left: Steven Johnson, Greg Davis, Karen Reczek, Jeremy 

Triplett, Laurel Farrell. (Absent are Mark Keisler, Roger Mitchell, David Fowler and Austin 

Hicklin.)
iii

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

Message from the Director of OSAC Affairs

Dear Colleagues:

These are transformative times for forensic science. This period of transformation began with 

the publication of a National Academies of Science1report in 2009 that was highly critical of 

the practice of forensic science. That report called for research to strengthen the scientific 

foundation of forensic methods and for standards to be implemented in crime laboratories 

throughout the nation. OSAC is playing a leading role in this transformation of forensic 

science by helping to create high-quality forensic science standards that are fit-for-purpose,

consensus-based and scientifically sound.

OSAC is uniquely qualified to undertake this mission because of the deep and varied 

expertise of its members. OSAC assembles more than 560 members and 260 affiliates 

representing key stakeholder groups, including practitioners, laboratory managers, academic 

researchers, metrologists, statisticians, human factors experts, accreditation and standards 

development experts, attorneys and judges. This diverse group represents federal, state and 

local agencies, academic institutions and private sector entities from all 50 states and more 

than a dozen nations.

Producing consistently high-quality standards is a demanding and complex process that 

requires great organizational and operational coordination. When done properly, the process 

is lengthy and can appear tedious. But the obligation to ensure that the innocent are 

exonerated and the guilty are properly convicted is worthy of our greatest efforts. As you will 

see in this 2016-2017 Annual Report, the work of OSAC is accelerating, but not at the cost of 

quality or due process.

In the past year, OSAC has: 

• Increased focus on interdisciplinary forensic science topics that apply across

Scientific Area Committees (SACs), including:

o A lexicon of terminology for all five SACs

o A range of conclusion statements common to multiple disciplines

• Made progress on 216 draft standards and guidelines

• Identified and published 95 forensic science research needs from all five SACs

• Posted 4 standards on the OSAC Registry.

But there can be no measurable benefits or positive impacts on the criminal justice system 

unless standards are adopted. Therefore, among its other duties, the FSSB has assembled a 

Standards Implementation Task Group under the direction of FSSB Chair Jeremy Triplett. 

This group will create a road map for successful implementation of OSAC standards 

throughout the forensic science community via the following implementation pathways:

• Self-Adoption: Crime laboratories incorporate OSAC standards into their standard

operating procedures.
iv

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

• Professional Associations: Issue policy statements encouraging adoption

• Statutory Requirements: Enactment of state legislation mandating the implementation

of OSAC standards by all forensic science service providers in their jurisdiction

• Justice System: Attorneys begin demanding testing using OSAC standards

• Accrediting Bodies: ISO/IEC 17025/20 supplemental standards or checklists

• Funding Bodies (Carrot): Offer funding incentives to implement standards

• Funding Bodies (Stick): Require OSAC standards implementation to access funding

• Other Pathways (Including educational programs)

We look forward to the publication of this implementation road map.

I would personally like to thank the members of the OSAC Editorial Board for providing the 

support necessary to review and improve the quality of all OSAC documents. I would also 

like to thank all OSAC members for their hard work and dedication to strengthening the use 

of science and science-based standards in our nation’s criminal justice system.

Sincerely,

Mark D. Stolorow

Director for OSAC Affairs at NIST

Fig. 2. OSAC Director Mark Stolorow 

____________________________

1 National Research Council Report entitled Strengthening Forensic Science in the United 

States - A Path Forward, National Academies Press, August 2009.
v

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

Executive Summary

OSAC is an initiative of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the 

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The purpose of OSAC is to strengthen the nation’s use of 

forensic science by:

• Providing technical leadership that facilitates the development and promulgation of

consensus-based documentary standards and guidelines for forensic science

• Promoting standards and guidelines that are fit-for-purpose and based on sound

scientific principles

• Promoting the use of OSAC standards and guidelines by accreditation and

certification bodies

• Establishing and maintaining working relationships with similar organizations

OSAC has made great strides as an organization. The FSSB has made several management 

improvements that allow for better functionality at all levels of OSAC. These include 

improved processes for reviewing and vetting standards, as well as documents destined to 

become standards, through standards developing organizations (SDOs). The FSSB has also 

welcomed additional members from the resource committees, leading to improved 

communication across all levels of OSAC. In addition, lessons learned are being shared 

across the organization with respect to operational performance and best practices for 

tackling challenging cross-disciplinary topics. 

To list just a few examples of the organization’s accomplishments, from February 2016 to 

February 2017, OSAC:

• Established interdisciplinary projects focused on terminology, training, statistics and

conclusions

• Merged the OSAC Registry of Approved Standards and OSAC Registry of Approved

Guidelines into a single OSAC Registry

• Developed roadmaps for select disciplines that outline gaps in standards and research,

contributing to better prioritization of standards development

• Utilized the organization’s academic scholars, legal professionals, practitioners and

scientists to help identify research gaps relevant to forensic science standards

• Continued investment in developing and reviewing over 200 documents across 25

subject areas that will improve current and future standards

Improving forensic science standards requires input from beyond OSAC, and we welcome

comments from all stakeholders and partners. If you have questions about this report or about 

OSAC, please contact us at forensics@nist.gov.
vi

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

Table of Contents

Message from the Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB) ............................................. ii

Message from the Director of OSAC Affairs.......................................................................iii

Executive Summary................................................................................................................ v

1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 OSAC: The Big Picture Goals and Accomplishments................................................... 3

2.1 Short-Term Goal: OSAC Partners with SDOs for Further Development ............. 4

2.1.1 OSAC Ongoing Standards Projects....................................................................... 5

2.2 Mid-Term Goal: OSAC Registry .......................................................................... 5

2.3 Long-Term Goal: Implementation ........................................................................ 6

2.3.1 FSSB Implementation Task Group ............................................................................. 6

3.0 Additional OSAC Accomplishments February 2016 – February 2017 ...................... 7

3.1 Interdisciplinary Forensic Science Discussions and Projects...................................... 7

3.2 Standards Roadmaps, Discipline-Specific Process Maps, and Standards Analyses . 10

3.3 Identifying Research and Development Needs ......................................................... 12

3.4 OSAC Posts Discipline-Specific Baseline Documents to Committee Web Pages ... 12

3.5 Language for Updated QAS ...................................................................................... 13

4.0 OSAC Public Meetings, Public Relations, and Engagement..................................... 13

5.0 OSAC Focus in 2017/2018............................................................................................. 15

5.1 The Forensic Science Lexicon................................................................................... 15

5.2 “Foundations” Task Group Report............................................................................ 16

6.0 Final Words.................................................................................................................... 16

7.0 Appendix: OSAC Projects List .................................................................................... 18
1

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

1.0 Introduction

The Organization of Scientific Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC) is an initiative by 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) focused on strengthening forensic science in the United States by:

• Providing technical leadership that facilitates

the development and promulgation of

consensus-based documentary standards and

guidelines for forensic science

• Promoting standards and guidelines that are

fit-for-purpose and based on sound scientific

principles

• Promoting the use of OSAC standards by

accreditation and certification bodies

• Establishing and maintaining working relationships with other similar organizations.

OSAC operates as a multi-level organization consisting of five Scientific Area Committees 

(SACs) which report to the Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB). Each of the five SACs 

oversees several discipline-specific subcommittees. In addition, three Resource Committees 

provide input and guidance to OSAC. 

OSAC includes members and affiliates. 

Affiliates can participate in task groups and 

provide subject matter expertise, but do not 

have the same voting rights as members. As 

of February 2017, OSAC structure and 

membership includes:

• 565 members

• 266 affiliates

• 50 states represented

• 239 task groups

• 2470 applications to participate

Visit https://www.nist.gov/topics/forensic-science/osac-organizational-structure, and see Fig. 

3, to learn more about the OSAC structure, the FSSB and the other committees.

OSAC Core P rinc ip les:

All standards and guidelines approved for inclusion 

on the OSAC Registry must be developed by a 

process that follows these four core OSAC 

principles:

• Openness

• Balance

• Consensus

• Harmonization

OSAC M ember C urre nt Job C lass if icat io n 

• Attorney: 2%

• Educator: 10%

• Judge: 1%

• Other: 10%

• Practitioner: 56%

• QA Manager: 2%

• R&D Tech: 2%

• Researcher: 19%
2

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

Fig. 3. OSAC is a multi-level organization consisting of 25 subcommittees, 5 SACs, 3 

resource committees and the FSSB.

This report summarizes OSAC’s goals, activities and accomplishments from February 2016 

to February 2017. OSAC strives to represent and address the needs of the entire stakeholder 

community. The audience for this report includes:

• OSAC members and affiliates

• Forensic science service providers

• Private sector manufacturers and service vendors supplying forensic science

providers

• Accrediting bodies

• Certifying bodies

• Representatives of the criminal justice system

• Representatives of the legal system (judges, prosecution and defense)

• Professional forensic science organizations

• Other professional scientific organizations

• Existing and historical Scientific Working Groups (SWGs)

• International and national standards organizations

• Federal, state, and local government agencies (including thousands of state and local

law enforcement agencies)

• Academia

• Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

• The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
3

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

• The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

• The public

2.0 OSAC: The Big Picture Goals and Accomplishments

OSAC has made great strides as an organization. The FSSB has made several management 

improvements that allow for better functionality at all levels of OSAC. These include 

improved processes for reviewing and vetting standards, as well as documents destined to 

become standards, through standards developing organizations (SDOs). The FSSB has also 

welcomed additional members from the resource committees, leading to improved 

communication across all levels of OSAC. In addition, lessons learned are being shared 

across the organization with respect to operational performance and best practices for 

tackling challenging cross-disciplinary topics. 

Most notably, the FSSB held the OSAC Leadership Strategy Session (OLSS) on June 22, 

2016, to share current program perspectives from each of the OSAC committees, collaborate 

on how to proceed in cases where perspectives may vary, and strive to reach a shared vision 

of success. The FSSB brought together representatives from all five SACs, three resource 

committees, statisticians and measurement scientists. The meeting resulted in 25 

programmatic recommendations, many of which were implemented in the reporting year. 

These meetings will be routine and in the future will include subcommittee chairs.

Fig. 4. Biology/DNA SAC, Physics/Pattern SAC, and LRC Representatives at the OLSS 

Meeting.

Based on the feedback received from OSAC members at this strategy session, the following 

program improvements were implemented or are in process:

• Resource Committee chairs were appointed as ex-officio members of the FSSB to

better facilitate inter-committee collaboration
4

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

• Resource Committee liaisons became ex-officio members on each of the SACs

• OSAC subcommittees posted discipline-specific baseline documents on each OSAC

subcommittee web page

• OSAC Registry of Approved Standards and OSAC Registry of Approved Guidelines

have been merged into a single OSAC Registry

• The FSSB instituted “pitch” meetings to increase dialogue between the various

committees about specific standards

• The FSSB sought to add a measurement scientist or statistician to each OSAC

committee

• The FSSB is working to develop a strategy to best achieve timeliness, relevance,

consensus and quality in OSAC standards.

OSAC is one entity within a community working towards improved forensic science 

standards and guidelines. Fig. 5 and sections 2.1-2.3 describe how the OSAC program 

interacts with SDOs and other entities.

Fig. 5. Big Picture View of OSAC Efforts. OSAC is one entity within a community working 

towards improved forensic science standards and guidelines.

2.1 Short-Term Goal: OSAC Partners with SDOs for Further Development

OSAC partners with existing SDOs to develop voluntary consensus standards in forensic

science. Oftentimes, its members participate in the SDO processes to further develop 

standards, which are ultimately published by the SDO. OSAC subcommittees have spent 

considerable time this past year developing new content to be submitted to SDOs for further 

development and publication. 
5

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

2.1.1 OSAC Ongoing Standards Projects 

OSAC members are now focusing on 218 different standards projects. See Appendix A for 

the entire list of active documents. These are currently moving through the two OSAC 

processes: the OSAC Working with an SDO Process and the OSAC Registry Approval 

Process. The first of these two processes entail OSAC committees or task groups submitting 

an idea, a partially drafted document, or a fully drafted document to an SDO for further 

modifications, balloting and publishing. The second process focuses on elevating selected 

standards or guidelines to the OSAC Registry. 

Throughout the year, various OSAC subcommittees submitted documents or document 

concepts to SDOs for further development, including the Academy Standards Board (ASB), 

the American Dental Association (ADA) and ASTM International. Of the 23 documents or 

concept submissions produced by OSAC over this past year, one has been subsequently 

finalized and published: ADA TR 1088 for Human Identification by Comparative Dental 

Analysis. Four have been subsequently revised: 

• ASTM E1412-12: Standard Practice for Separation of Ignitable Liquid Residues from

Fire Debris Samples by Passive Headspace Concentration with Activated Charcoal

• ASTM E1386-15: Standard Practice for Separation of Ignitable Liquid Residues from

Fire Debris Samples by Solvent Extraction

• ASTM E2330 Standard Test Method ICP-MS for glass

• ASTM E2926 Standard Test Method XRF for glass.

2.2 Mid-Term Goal: OSAC Registry

The OSAC Registry is intended to serve as a trusted repository of high-quality standards that

address discipline-specific requirements in forensic science. Many of the documents being 

developed within OSAC, and in conjunction with SDOs, are intended for placement on the 

OSAC Registry. A standard or guideline that is posted on the OSAC Registry demonstrates 

that the methods it contains have been assessed to be valid by forensic practitioners, 

academic researchers, measurement scientists and statisticians through a consensus 

development process that allows participation and comment from all relevant stakeholders.

Three standards were added to the OSAC Registry between February 2016 and February 

2017: 

• NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, 2014 Edition – Fire and

Explosion Subcommittee. Added on September 20, 2016

• ISO/IEC 17025:2005 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and

Calibration Laboratories – Interdisciplinary Virtual Subcommittee. Added on

September 27, 2016

• NFPA 1033: Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Investigator, 2014

Edition – Fire and Explosion Investigation Subcommittee. Added on December 22,

2016
6

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

Many existing standards are not included on the OSAC Registry. That does not necessarily 

mean that OSAC considers them invalid. The absence of a standard from the Registry may 

simply mean that the standard has not yet been recommended, or that it meets only some of 

OSAC's criteria for inclusion.

The OSAC Registry is available at: https://www.nist.gov/topics/forensic-science/osacapproved-registry-documents, and public documents associated with the Registry Approval 

Process can be found on the OSAC Registry Public Documents page: 

https://www.nist.gov/topics/forensic-science/osac-registry-public-documents. 

2.3 Long-Term Goal: Implementation

OSAC’s broadest impact will be made through the implementation of forensic science 

standards. Currently, the use of forensic science standards is not required by law, with the 

exception of forensic DNA laboratories that are held to the FBI Quality Assurance Standards 

(QAS), as required by the DNA Identification Act of 1994. Therefore, there are few 

discipline-specific documentary standards that can be used to audit laboratories. Individual 

laboratories such as the Kentucky State Police (KSP) and Georgia Bureau of Investigation 

have independently elected to adopt standards on the OSAC Registry by incorporating them 

into their standard operating procedures (SOPs). For example, the KSP Drug Chemistry 

section, following the ISO/IEC 17025 numbering scheme, has recently updated its SOPs to 

formally incorporate OSAC standards and guidelines.

As OSAC adds additional standards and guidelines to the OSAC Registry, individual crime 

laboratories, or sections within laboratories, should consider a similar approach. If you 

decide to incorporate OSAC standards and/or guidelines into your SOPs, please let OSAC 

know by emailing us at forensics@nist.gov.

2.3.1 FSSB Implementation Task Group

The FSSB Implementation Task Group has been very active in 2016/2017, and has analyzed 

and facilitated potential mechanisms for broader implementation of standards on the OSAC 

Registry. The draft OSAC Implementation Plan identifies many other approaches to 

encourage the adoption of the standards/guidelines on the OSAC Registry. Potential 

implementation pathways under discussion are shown in Fig. 6.
7

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

Fig. 6. Potential OSAC Implementation Pathways Under Consideration by the FSSB.

3.0 Additional OSAC Accomplishments February 2016 – February 2017

This section describes additional notable OSAC outputs and activities from February 2016 to 

February 2017. 

3.1 Interdisciplinary Forensic Science Discussions and Projects

The wide spectrum of stakeholders and disciplines in OSAC offers an opportunity for 

interdisciplinary projects and dialogue.

For example, OSAC provides:

• More cross-discipline visibility and understanding of the commonalities and

differences in the way forensic science practitioners perform their work

• Opportunities for forensic science disciplines to leverage each other’s scientific

successes

• Routine access to insights and perspectives from all stakeholders (from both within

and outside the forensic science community)

• The ability to develop and promote enforceable standards through a unified effort in

the forensic science field, and to broaden the potential impact of those standards.
8

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

Several interdisciplinary OSAC projects are underway. These are led by “virtual 

subcommittees and task groups" that consist of members from multiple disciplines and 

committees. These interdisciplinary projects include: 

• The Training, Continuing Education and Professional Development Virtual

Subcommittee focuses on a new potential standard, guideline, or other publication.

• The Conclusions Virtual Subcommittee defines standard terminology and usage for

forensic examiners expressing source conclusions for publishing as a potential

standard, guideline, or other publication.

• The Statistics Task Group consists of statisticians who sit on the various OSAC

committees, and who collaborate on specific statistics challenges related to the

OSAC.

• The ACE Virtual Subcommittee focuses on developing discipline-specific

methodologies for applying the method known as ACE-V (an acronym for the

Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation and Verification methodology used by forensic

practitioners primarily when conducting feature comparisons).

• The 29 Word Terminology Task Group works to refine definitions for the terms that

the Legal Resource Committee has identified as being most challenging.

In addition to specific task groups that are coordinating the development or promotion of 

interdisciplinary standards, other interdisciplinary discussions held throughout the year

included:

• At the Summer 2016 meetings, Christopher J. Plourd, Superior Court Judge, State of

California, LRC Committee Chair and Ronald S. Reinstein, Judge and Judicial

Consultant of the Arizona Supreme Court, provided a briefing on a judge’s

responsibility in the courtroom.

• Also at the Summer 2016 meetings, James Curran offered the statistics task group’s

assessment of some standards routing through the OSAC process.

Fig. 7. OSAC Interdisciplinary Discussions. Left: Judge’s Responsibility in the Courtroom 

Briefing at the Summer 2016 Meetings. Right: OSAC Members and Affiliates offer the task 

group’s statistical insights.
9

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

Another example of interdisciplinary discussions that yielded broader understanding on a 

specific topic is provided in this testimonial, “The Hidden Power of the OSAC”, from Jose 

Almirall, Ph.D., Chair of the Chemistry SAC and FSSB Member:

If I had known that my email to the legal resource committee (LRC) chair would end up quoted, 

verbatim, in a Harvard Law Review article I might have taken a few extra minutes to word it 

better. The power of the OSAC structure is that any of the 560+ OSAC members (plus the 250+ 

affiliates) have access to a unique assemblage of experts ranging from discipline-specific 

forensic science practitioners (and researchers in the state-of-the-art of each of the disciplines) 

to measurement scientists, statisticians, behavioral scientists and legal experts. Most of the 

OSAC membership is devoted to pursuing the primary aim: to develop and promote consensus 

documentary standards that ensure the use of the best science and the best practice of science 

in forensic casework. Much progress is being made towards the achievement of these goals, 

even if it is slow-going.

OSAC also provides access to communication channels that were not previously available. 

Several examples of the awesome power of direct communications have resulted in positive 

outcomes for the forensic science community, but not all necessarily translate into a consensus 

documentary standard as the product of the OSAC efforts.

The one example I will share is an email that I sent to the LRC chair (in my then capacity as a 

member of the Chemistry SAC) requesting clarification on a legal/statistical question that 

arose as a result of a negative vote on a standard from one of the Chemistry SAC members. 

The reasoning for the negative vote argued that a legal requirement had to be met by the 

measurement standard but this argument did not convince some of us on the SAC. The LRC 

issued an opinion that was later expanded into a commentary published in the Harvard Law 

Review [1].

I was asked permission by the author of the HLR paper, Prof. David Kaye, to use the original 

wording in my email, and I agreed. This opinion clarified the question at the heart of the 

discussion, and the Chemistry SAC was able to move on with their deliberations. The SAC 

approved the standard, which then moved on to the next steps in the OSAC process. There are 

many other examples of the power that the community of devoted and passionate members of 

the OSAC brings to bear on addressing the needs of the forensic science disciplines.

1. D. H Kaye, Hypothesis Testing in Law and Forensic Science: A Memorandum, Forensic

Commentary Series, Harvard Law Review, March 10, 2017, 130 Harv. L. Rev. F. 127.

https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/03/hypothesis-testing-in-law-and-forensic-science-amemorandum/
10

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

3.2 Standards Roadmaps, Discipline-Specific Process Maps, and Standards Analyses

A number of subcommittees such as the Friction Ridge Subcommittee and the Fire Debris & 

Explosives Subcommittee have developed strategic standards roadmaps that outline some or 

all of the following: research gaps, technical standards gaps, quality standards gaps, and other 

state-of-the-discipline information. It enabled the subcommittees to better prioritize their 

approach to standards development and promotion. 

Other disciplines, such as the Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Subcommittee and the Speaker 

Recognition Subcommittee, analyzed and documented the technical process steps undertaken 

by that discipline, in order to better conceptualize and chronologically order the content in 

standards (see Fig. 8). These process maps will eventually be published on the 

subcommittee’s Web pages.

Fig. 8. OSAC members and affiliates analyze the earliest drafts of the Bloodstain Pattern 

Analysis Subcommittee process map during the Summer 2016 OSAC meetings. 

The Toxicology Subcommittee developed an overarching OSAC process roadmap. OSAC 

documents currently move through the two OSAC processes: the OSAC Working with an 

SDO Process and the OSAC Registry Approval Process of Published Standards and 

Guidelines. There are also other steps that committees take while performing OSAC work.

See Figure 9 for a pictorial view of the stages of review that an OSAC document goes

through, as well as the anticipated timeframe a document might spend in each step. 
11

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

Fig. 9. The Toxicology Subcommittee developed a roadmap of the various OSAC process 

steps, and made the roadmap available for use by other committees. 

In Fall 2016, the Geological Materials Subcommittee held a workshop on the Identification, 

Collection and Preservation of Soil Evidence at Crime Scenes. The workshop was held 

during the Joint California Association of Criminalistics (CAC)/The American Society of 

Trace Evidence Examiners meeting in Palm Springs, CA. The goal of the workshop was to 

determine whether a document that OSAC was working on was fit for its intended purpose.

The workshop was taught by members of the Geological Materials Subcommittee. 

Participants were provided the draft version of the subcommittee’s guideline on field 

collection of soils for forensic applications to read in advance of the workshop. The 

workshop participants received classroom training related to the guideline in the morning, 

and in the afternoon, they processed mock crime scenes based on the direction provided in 

the guideline. After the workshop, the participants provided feedback on the guideline, and 

changes were made to the document to address the feedback that was received.
12

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

Fig. 10. The Geological Materials Subcommittee held a workshop on the Identification, 

Collection and Preservation of Soil Evidence at Crime Scenes to assess the suitability of the 

approach. Photo Credit: CAC News.

3.3 Identifying Research and Development Needs 

OSAC also recognizes that it is well-positioned to inform the community of R&D needs that 

are identified during standards and guidelines development and promotion. In order to share 

these identified research needs with the public, OSAC regularly publishes a list of 

recommended R&D needs that include inputs from all of the 25 subcommittees and five 

SACs.

These recommendations may be considered by other agencies and organizations as they 

develop their own priorities and solicit funding for forensic science research. In addition, 

funding agencies may find these recommendations to be useful as they develop new 

solicitations. 

The process of coordinating these identified research needs was implemented in October

2015. The current list of research needs is located on the OSAC website:

https://www.nist.gov/topics/forensic-science/osac-research-development-needs.

3.4 OSAC Posts Discipline-Specific Baseline Documents to Committee Web Pages

In December 2016, the FSSB provided the opportunity for OSAC subcommittees to identify 

baseline documents and reference materials that best reflect the current state of the practice 

within their respective disciplines. These documents contain practical information regarding 

these disciplines that can help forensic scientists, judges, lawyers, researchers, other 

interested parties and the general public to better understand the nature, scope and 

foundations of the individual disciplines as they are currently practiced.
13

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

The purpose of this activity is to collect and consolidate existing documents that are relevant 

to the forensic science community while OSAC standards and guidelines are still under 

development. The baseline documents are intended to represent procedures that are currently 

being used, and to identify a baseline from which OSAC can move forward. It is important to 

note that the identification of these documents in this venue does not represent an 

endorsement by OSAC or NIST. All copyrights for these documents are reserved by their 

owners. Only the listing of documents on the OSAC Registry constitutes an OSAC 

endorsement.

Additionally, OSAC posts draft documents that have been sent to SDOs and advertises when 

these documents become available for public review at the SDOs. OSAC also posts relevant 

information from resource committees. 

To view these documents, visit: https://www.nist.gov/topics/forensic-science/osacorganizational-structure, and click on the relevant subcommittee page. 

3.5 Language for Updated QAS 

Under the DNA Identification Act of 1994, adherence to the FBI Quality Assurance 

Standards (QAS) is required for forensic DNA laboratories connected to the National DNA 

Index System (NDIS). Updates to the QAS are periodically made by the Scientific Working 

Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM). 

Because there are several people on both SWGDAM and OSAC, progress in each 

organization can be shared across both groups. The latest revision of the QAS under 

consideration includes a new section on validating software (Standard 8.7). Much of the 

information from this new proposed QAS standard was taken from a draft OSAC document,

“Best Practice Recommendations for Validation of Forensic DNA Software.” While this 

OSAC document is not yet released in a final form, OSAC efforts have indirectly benefited 

SWGDAM and the forthcoming QAS update.

4.0 OSAC Public Meetings, Public Relations, and Engagement

OSAC reports its activities to the public annually. In the February 2017 OSAC public 

meeting in New Orleans, LA, committees discussed the standards on the OSAC Registry, the 

23 work items handed over to the SDOs during the previous year, and an overview of the 

other draft standards in progress. Some of the event’s discussion points echoed last year’s 

important themes (such as the need to continually place focus on technical merit, and the 

need to consider the influence of bias on stated opinions and conclusions), but some new 

discussion topics and nuances also emerged:

• Subcommittee chairs reported on the various ways they intend to address error and

error management in standards. For example, the Digital Evidence Subcommittee

noted that they are focusing on training and yearly proficiency exams, as well as

tested and validated tools and processes, to reduce examiner error.
14

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

• Subcommittees reported continued efforts to address cognitive bias. For example, the

Disaster and Victim Identification Subcommittee noted that one of the R&D needs

they posted was seeking more information related to cognitive bias, particularly to

assess whether/where it exists in disaster victim identification, and to solicit specific

ideas for mitigation strategies in this space.

• Additional OSAC subcommittees including Dogs and Sensors, Medicolegal Death

Investigation, Materials/Trace, and Footwear and Tire, reported that that they plan to

submit another 12 new work items to SDOs in the near term.

• International guests from a variety of countries including Australia, Canada, France,

Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, and the United Kingdom have contributed

to OSAC over the past year. Their contributions and perspectives are greatly

appreciated by all.

Fig. 11. Chairs Andy Smith (Firearms & Toolmarks) and Kenneth Furton (Dogs & Sensors) 

provide public updates at the AAFS Meeting, New Orleans, LA, February 2017.

The SACs provide public updates at other conferences relevant to their disciplines. For 

example:

• OSAC held public meetings at the International Association for Identification (IAI)

conferences.

• OSAC representatives have published web and journal articles related to the program

to create awareness and share progress.

Finally, in adherence with the OSAC charter, OSAC efforts are reported annually, most 

recently at the February 13-14, 2017 American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) 

Annual Meeting. Video recordings and slide decks of OSAC Subcommittee Priority Action 

Reports are available online at: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/events/2017/02/osacscientific-area-committees-public-status-reports-open-discussions. 
15

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

5.0 OSAC Focus in 2017/2018

OSAC will continue to improve standards across all forensic science disciplines. The 

organization aims to improve its processes, management and ways to work alongside the 

SDOs. More specifically, OSAC will work on the 218 standards and guidelines projects 

already underway. This section describes some other efforts that OSAC will focus on in 

2017/2018. 

5.1 The Forensic Science Lexicon

In 2016, the FSSB directed all SACs and subcommittees to commence a terminology review 

exercise for their disciplines. The purpose of this exercise was to help identify discrepancies 

or dual meanings for particular terms. 

For example, as part of this exercise, committees identified multiple ways that the term 

“bias” is used, including:

• Bias: The difference between the mean of several measurements under identical

conditions, to a known “true” value. It is often reported as a percent difference.

(Source: Scientific Working Group for Forensic Toxicology (SWGTOX) Standard

Practices for Method Validation in Forensic Toxicology)

• Bias: Preconception; prejudice; taint; partiality. Since most persons have biases, the

issue is whether the bias is such that impartiality cannot be achieved and a fair

outcome cannot occur. Any predisposition that a judge or arbitrator may have may be

grounds for recusal. Any predisposition that a witness may have may be grounds for

impeachment by cross‐examination. Any predisposition that a juror may have may be

grounds for excusal determined through a process known as voir dire. (Source:

Barron's Legal Guides, Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, Gifis, S. H.2003)

• Bias: The difference between the expectation of the test results and an accepted

reference value. (Source: SWGDRUG Glossary of Terms and Definitions)

• Bias: The quantitative characterization of systematic error. (Source: Vosk, T. (2013).

Measurement Uncertainty. Kirkland, WA: Elsevier Ltd.)

SACs and subcommittees sourced over 3900 terms from existing documentary standards, 

guidelines, textbooks, and other reference documents and sources. Some definitions were 

created by the OSAC subcommittees.

Work is now underway to make the full lexicon available to the public. It is OSAC’s hope 

that the first edition of the lexicon will help stakeholders determine which terms could use 

further clarification, both within and between disciplines. OSAC will update the lexicon 

quarterly, with the ultimate goal of encouraging a common vocabulary across forensic 

science, where possible, and to clearly identify differences where necessary.
16

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

5.2 “Foundations” Task Group Report

The FSSB is developing a foundational exercise for OSAC that will help capture the current 

state of each forensic science discipline to include considerations such as method validation, 

measurements, traceability, reporting, potential for bias, error rate calculations, and other 

considerations. The report is currently a draft, undergoing internal OSAC review.

6.0 Final Words

OSAC has made great strides to help achieve and develop technically valid and consensusbased standards and guidelines, spanning 25 forensic disciplines. With over 800 members 

and affiliates, representing key stakeholder groups, including practitioners, laboratory 

managers, academic researchers, measurement scientists, statisticians, human factors experts, 

accreditation and standards development experts, attorneys and judges, the organization will 

continue to find ways to improve its operations and to be transparent to the entire forensic 

science community.

Fig. 12. Clockwise from top left: Robyn Ragsdale leads an OSAC meeting; Mark Stolorow 

and Jeremy Triplett at the resource committee meeting; Kim Murga provides a public update; 

the Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Subcommittee conducts process mapping, Sandra RodriguezCruz leads a subcommittee meeting.
17

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

Document Disclaimer: 

This publication was produced as part of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for 

Forensic Science (OSAC) and is made available by the U.S. Government. The views 

expressed in this publication and in the OSAC Technical Series Publications do not 

necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Government. The publications are 

provided “as-is” as a public service and the U.S. Government is not liable for their contents.

Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this publication to 

foster understanding. Such identification does not imply recommendation or endorsement by 

the U.S. Government, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment identified are 

necessarily the best available for the purpose.

Copyright Disclaimer:

Contributions to the OSAC Technical Series publications made by employees of the United 

States Government acting in their official capacity are not subject to copyright protection 

within the United States. The Government may assert copyright to such contributions in 

foreign countries. Contributions to the OSAC Technical Series publications made by others 

are generally subject to copyright held by the authors or creators of such contributions, all 

rights reserved. Use of the OSAC Technical Series publications by third parties must be 

consistent with the copyrights held by contributors.
18

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac

7.0 Appendix: OSAC Projects List

Within the tables in this section, an abbreviation of “SDO” means a standard or guideline has 

reached a stage in the OSAC Working with an SDO Process, and an “RA” means a standard 

or guideline is routing through the OSAC Registry Approval Process of Published Standards 

and Guidelines. 
19

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac
20

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac
21

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac
22

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac
23

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac
24

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac
25

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac
26

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac
27

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac
28

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac
29

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac
30

This publication is available free of charge from: https://nist.gov/osac