Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

OSAC	RESEARCH	NEEDS	ASSESSMENT	FORM

Title	of	research	need: Development	of	new	technologies	for	discovery	and	characterization	of	

forensically	useful	markers	of	relevant	species’	biogeography

Keyword(s): stable	isotope,	next	generation	sequencing	(NGS),	genomics,	geographic	origin

Submitting	subcommittee(s): Wildlife	Forensics Date	Approved: 2/3/2016

(If	SAC	review	identifies	additional	subcommittees,	add	them	to	the	box	above.)

Background	Information:

1. Description	of	research	need:

There	are	many	enforcement	questions	that	are	difficult	to	answer,	such	as	determining	the	geographic	

origin	of	a	given	organism.	Sometimes	such	questions	are	important	because	wildlife	in	one	location	is	

legal	to	“take,”	but	wild	animals	from	another	location	are	not.	Geography	can	also	be	important	in	

trade	law	and	seafood	labeling;	shrimp,	for	example,	are	subject	to	anti-dumping	tariffs	or	are	

embargoed	from	many	countries,	and	can	be	“laundered”	or	trans-shipped	through	countries	with	

which	trade	is	allowed; traditional	genetic	methods	cannot	distinguish	shrimp	farmed	in	China	from	

Malaysian	product.	The	actual	origin	of	items	involved	in	wildlife	trafficking	operations,	such	as	ivory,	

rhino	horn,	or	crafted	products	is	often	masked	by	convoluted	transport	routes.	But	there	is	hope	that	

emerging	technologies	can	help	resolve	such	questions.

In	addition	to	geographic	origin,	these	emerging	technologies	may	also	discover	markers	to	replace	

traditional	methods	such	as	Sanger	sequencing	and	STRs,	resulting	in	more	efficient	analysis.	Grantees	

are	encouraged	to	partner	with	an	active	wildlife	forensic	laboratory	to	hone	the	research	question	to	

the	current	need.

2. Key	bibliographic	references	relating	to	this	research	need:

ML	Coghlan,	J	Haile,	J	Houston,	et	al.	2012.	Deep	Sequencing	of	Plant	and	Animal	DNA	Contained	within	

Traditional	Chinese	Medicines	Reveals	Legality	Issues	and	Health	Safety	Concerns.	PLoS	Genetics	8,	

e1002657.

D	R	Rubenstein,	KA	Hobson.	2004.	From	birds	to	butterflies:	animal	movement	patterns	and	stable	

isotopes,	Trends	in	Ecology	&	Evolution.	19(5):256-263.

S	Kelly,	K	Heaton,	J	Hoogewerff.	2005.	Tracing	the	geographical	origin	of	food:	The	application	of	multielement	and	multi-isotope	analysis,	Trends	in	Food	Science	&	Technology.	16(12):555-567.

KT	Uno,	J	Quade,	DC	Fisher,	et	al.	2013.	Bomb-curve	radiocarbon	measurement	of	recent	biologic	

tissues	and	applications	to	wildlife	forensics	and	stable	isotope	(paleo)ecology.	Proceedings	of	the	

National	Academy	of	Sciences	110:11736-11741.

Y	Yang,	B	Zie,	J	Wan.	2014.	Application	of	Next-generation	Sequencing	Technology	in	Forensic	Science.	

Genomics,	Proteomics	&	Bioinformatics.	12(5):190-197.
Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

3a. In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	current	laboratory	capabilities?

New	technologies	enabling	determination	of	geographic	origin	would	allow	enforcement	of	laws	

regarding	anti-dumping,	false	labeling,	and	wildlife	protection	where	country	of	origin	or	distinct	

population	segments	are	at	issue.

Stable	isotopes	can	provide	detailed	information	that	correlates	local	geographic,	thermal,	and	

temporal	characteristics	for	a	point	location	and	organisms	that	occupy	that	location	over	their	

lifespan.

Next	generation	sequencing	technologies	provide	an	efficient	method	for	development	of	a	diverse	

array	of	genetic	markers	(e.g.	SNPs)	that	may	enable	more	efficient	and	robust	analyses,	particularly	of	

highly	degraded	evidence	for	identification	of	individuals,	populations,	or	species.	

Development	of	reliable	methods	for	environmental	DNA	(eDNA)	and	microbiome	analysis,	utilizing	

deep	sequencing	technology,	would	provide	additional	methods	of	analyzing	materials	removed	from	

their	place	of	origin,	including	protected	timber,	bushmeat,	and	protected	plants	and	animals.

3b. In	what	ways would	the	research	results	improve	understanding	of	the	scientific	basis	for	the	

subcommittee(s)?

Emerging	technologies	provide	a	way	to	test	and	refine	current	species	identification	methods,	

however,	subspecies	and	hybrid	species	issues	are	often	tied	to	questions	about	geographic	origin.	A	

better	understanding	of	geographic	origin	of	trafficked	wildlife	species	would	provide	insight	into	

locations	and	species	that	are	current	targets	for	illegal	trade,	as	well	as	information	about	changes	in	

species	ranges	and	subspecies	status.	The	effects	of	climate	change	will	undoubtedly	influence	

taxonomic	species	boundaries	as	well	as	species	distributions,	and	efficient	methods	of	evaluating	

geographic,	temporal,	and	thermal	characteristics	of	plants	and	animals	will	enable	the	field	of	wildlife	

forensics	to	evolve	faster	as	a	scientific	discipline.

3c.		In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	services	to	the	criminal	justice	system?

More	efficient	methods	for	determining	geographic	source	of	plants	and animals	involved	in	wildlife	

trafficking	would	enable	law	enforcement	agencies	to	more	quickly		identify	the	source	of	criminal	

exploitation,	and	apprehend	the	violators	before	large	scale	trafficking	operations	become	established.		

Deep	sequencing	and	stable	isotope	analysis	will	produce	data	that	is	applicable	both	to	current	

enforcement	questions	and	development	of	future	scientific	capabilities	that	will	inform	law	

enforcement	into	the	future.

4.		Status	assessment	(I,	II,	III,	or	IV): I Major gap	in	

current	

knowledge

Minor	gap	in	

current	

knowledge

No	or	limited

current	research	

is	being	conducted

I III

Existing current	

research	is	being	

conducted

II IV

This	research	need	has	been	identified	by	one	or	more	subcommittees	of	OSAC	and	is	being	provided	as	an	

informational	resource	to	the	community.
Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

Approvals:

Subcommittee Approval	date: 2/3/16

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	subcommittee.	Once	approved,	forward	to	SAC.)

SAC

1.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	research	need? Yes x No

2.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	status	assessment? Yes x No

If	no,	what	is	the	status	assessment	of	the	SAC:

Approval	date: 3/16/16

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	SAC.		Once	approved,	forward	to	NIST	for	posting.)