SWGMDI’S Research Committee: Report and Recommendations for Research 

(Published 6.5.14) Page 1

Research in Forensic Pathology/Medicolegal Death Investigation

A Report and Recommendations Prepared by the Research Committee of the

Scientific Working Group on Medicolegal Death Investigation (SWGMDI)

Executive Summary

The medicolegal death investigation system oversees the investigation of certain disorders that 

do not typically fall under the domain of academic hospitals, and thus are not generally autopsied 

in academic pathology departments in which research is not only permissible (with informed 

consent) but also strongly encouraged and fostered. The major category of such disorders is 

sudden and unexpected death. Disorders within the sudden and unexpected death category 

include suicide, including a population of those committing suicide with a variety of mental 

disorders, traumatic brain injury, and a variety of violent/homicidal deaths with frequently 

overlooked clinical behavioral manifestations, sudden unexplained death in epilepsy (SUDEP), 

sudden unexplained death in childhood (SUDC), sudden unexpected infant death (SUID), and 

deaths consistent with the definition of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

In several of these disorders, the death remains unexplained after the autopsy and scene 

investigation and thus research is urgently needed. In virtually all of these disorders, the 

biological mechanisms, including brain pathology, are poorly understood. In order to develop 

treatment strategies and diagnostic biomarkers in living individuals with these afflictions or at 

risk for them, state-of-the-art research is needed. Moreover, this research must be critically 

based upon modern cellular, biochemical, and molecular techniques that are not routine autopsy

practice and require special methods of tissue handling at the time of autopsy. In neuroscience, 

to name but one example, the stunning advances in tissue analysis (including proteomics, 

transcriptomics, western blotting, high performance liquid chromatography, and postmortem 

brain imaging with tractography) are now applicable to investigate the human brain at autopsy, 

and it is essential that these advances are translated to the investigation of deaths believed to be 

the result of sudden and unexpected neurological disorders. Furthermore, because there are no 

animal models for many of these disorders, research directly in human tissues at autopsy is 

imperative. 

Research needs in medicolegal death investigation extend to areas in which the cause of death is 

known. Drugs and alcohol are often involved in deaths within the medicolegal death 

investigation system yet may not be fully examined due to fiscal limitations. Drug distributions 

are critically needed in pharmaceutical and toxicologic studies but require analysis from different 
SWGMDI’S Research Committee: Report and Recommendations for Research 

(Published 6.5.14) Page 2

body systems and fluids, studies that may be limited by tissue restrictions or finances. Molecular 

pharmacogenomics is critically needed to understand the human responses to drugs and other 

substances. This applied research would advance understanding of drug metabolism in living 

patients as well as provide enhanced detection within the medicolegal system. Similarly, 

violence and injury is a leading cause of death in many age groups; these deaths are nearly the 

exclusive domain of medicolegal death investigation systems. Scientific studies of violence and 

injury are needed to understand and address this public health problem. This can only be done 

with rigorous scientific studies within medicolegal death investigation (MDI) system. These 

examples are not inclusive but rather a starting point for scientific investigation.

Finally, “systems” research is needed within the MDI community. These system needs 

encompass broad areas, from the identification of the most effective provision of MDI services 

within geographically different and demographically diverse communities to basic practice 

parameters involved in MDI, such as the ruling of manner of death, investigation needed in 

certain types of deaths or death scenes, etc.

In summary, there are diverse and collaborative research needs within the practice, system, and 

environment of medicolegal death investigation. Research in these areas would aid in addressing

basic health, wellness, psychiatric, and public health needs of the United States and 

internationally. Furthermore, this information can then be translated to prevent these deaths and 

better diagnose and treat living patients as well as enhance the medicolegal community’s role in 

the courts and the criminal and civil justice systems.

This document addresses several key issues related to medicolegal death investigation research 

and is divided into corresponding parts. First, it identifies some of the barriers inhibiting 

research in the field of medicolegal death investigation. Second, it describes potential 

mechanisms to reduce those barriers. Third, it describes ways to promote research through access 

to study materials. Fourth, it describes ways to promote research through access to grant money. 

Finally, it presents a gap analysis based on survey studies and presents recommendations for 

research focus areas by the Scientific Working Group for Medicolegal Death Investigation 

(SWGMDI).
SWGMDI’S Research Committee: Report and Recommendations for Research 

(Published 6.5.14) Page 3

Research in Forensic Pathology/Medicolegal Death Investigation

A Report and Recommendations Prepared by the Research Committee of the

Scientific Working Group on Medicolegal Death Investigation (SWGMDI)

Barriers to Medicolegal Death Investigation Research 

The barriers to research in medicolegal death investigation (MDI), including forensic pathology,

are diverse, widespread, and start at the local level and continue on up to the national and 

international levels.

In order to facilitate research in the medicolegal death investigation system, two fundamental 

changes are needed: 1) the development of acceptance of research in the forensic community by

society such that research in death investigation agencies is not considered a conflict of interest, 

but rather an essential part of the mandate to determine the cause (and mechanism) of death; and 

2) the fostering of a culture in the forensic community of support for and involvement in 

research, particularly in disorders that are the main purview of forensic medicine (e.g., sudden 

and unexplained death).

The medicolegal death investigation system has historically been mandated to determine the 

cause and manner of death on an individual level. This mandate should be broadened to advance 

basic knowledge of the disorders under investigation and therefore to include research. An 

example of this expansion in practice can be drawn from the state of California, whose infant 

autopsy law permits not only the determination of cause and manner of death, but also facilitates

research for the general welfare in disorders suspected of causing death, particularly those that 

fall uniquely under the domain of the medicolegal death investigation system. Moreover, 

families should be given the opportunity to participate in research, which may impact other 

family members or populations of patients. 

The cultural paradigm shift will ultimately require changes in state and federal laws, as 

pioneered in California for sudden and unexpected infant deaths. Nevertheless, these legislative 

changes are essential to better serve the welfare of society in general by performing state of the

art research that will lead to the eradication or amelioration via treatment of disease. Society 

must place as much value upon research as it does upon the determination of an individual cause 

of death, and it must see research as part of the scientific investigation towards determining the 

cause of death. Effective policies need to end the barrier many medicolegal death investigation 

systems encounter (e.g., fear of litigation for fostering or performing forensic research). The 

policy change would support and allow for research as part of the fundamental mission of the 

forensic community. 
SWGMDI’S Research Committee: Report and Recommendations for Research 

(Published 6.5.14) Page 4

Currently, “research” in the medicolegal death investigation system includes case presentations 

and descriptive case series. Research requires that the information being gathered and compared 

be of similar quality. Diverse death investigation systems do not have uniform resources and do 

not necessarily collect the same data, and the depth of detail varies. Uniform collection of 

information is essential for the research applications and in order to apply those findings toward 

a better interpretation of the circumstances surrounding a death as it relates to the public’s

interests. However, the very nature of medicolegal death investigation precludes this from 

occurring in every case. Each death and each death investigation has its own focus and nuances.

It should be noted that much valuable research potential involves the intersection of forensic 

pathology with other disciplines such as epidemiology and public health and safety (reviewed in 

1).

The Research Committee has identified some of the barriers to research in medicolegal death 

investigation including forensic pathology and these include:

 Time constraints for those individuals who may have an interest;

 Access to appropriate study materials such as fluid specimens, tissue specimens and 

case file materials;

 Legal issues may include consent to obtain and use biological material and/or case 

information for research purposes, which may be beyond the scope of the usual 

statutory purposes of a death investigation to determine cause and manner of death in 

the public interest;

 Skill, aptitude and experience in research design, execution, and publication; 

 Funding for personnel, materials and equipment;

 Obstacles encountered in writing grants to support research efforts;

 Lack of interest in conducting research at the local level by forensic pathologists, 

coroners and other medicolegal death investigators.

Ways to Reduce the Barriers to Medicolegal Death Investigation Research 

It is anticipated that the final recommendations of the SWGMDI will contribute in large part to 

reducing barriers to research by achieving its goals of improving death investigation overall and 

advancing the scientific basis of MDI.

A consideration to reduce the barriers to research would include formation of regional centers 

based in a university, large MDI system facilities or newly created geographical regional MDI 

research centers. Regional centers could focus upon specific entities and utilize standard

investigative and research protocols, the latter directed by hypotheses and specific aims. The 

centers should partner with local and regional academic universities and pathology departments 

to facilitate research collaborations; such regionalization allows for the standardization of 

autopsy protocols, ancillary studies, and classification schemes. Most research (on any topic) 
SWGMDI’S Research Committee: Report and Recommendations for Research 

(Published 6.5.14) Page 5

takes place in academic medical centers, which have resources for both support of research and 

collaborations; this topic is reviewed elsewhere (2). In addition, regionalization would permit 

the researchers to have a larger and more uniform population to assess when addressing research 

questions. Standardization of autopsies and death scene protocols is also critical to research in 

order that the cases are consistently and comprehensively phenotyped for the particular entity 

under study. Under no circumstances should research sampling interfere with or impinge upon 

the determination of the cause of death for medicolegal purposes. In cases of suspected child 

abuse and homicide, for example, brain samples should not be donated for research if 

examination of the brain as a whole is needed to exclude intentional trauma. Finally, there are 

now established private and National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded tissue and DNA banks 

that include disorders under the auspice of the medicolegal death investigation laws. Regional 

forensic research centers would be responsible for developing partnerships with forensic 

pathologists, coroners, medicolegal death investigators, and other scientists who have an interest, 

aptitude, and skill in conducting collaborative research and would allow for partnerships with 

other stakeholders such as law enforcement, clinical physicians, and prosecuting, plaintiff and 

defense attorneys. 

The current time constraints imposed on those who do have such an interest in medicolegal death 

investigation systems or forensic pathology research should be alleviated by offering grantfunded research sabbaticals to conduct studies or to learn how to conduct research at the local 

level. Regional centers would provide for an infrastructure that would provide an opportunity 

for resolution of legal issues, and optimize funding while alleviating obstacles encountered in 

writing grants. Centralized, controlled access to appropriate study materials would also be 

optimized to support research efforts and improve collaboration.

Ways to Support Research through Access to Study Materials 

Access to study materials is a critical component to further advancement of justice and 

knowledge within forensic sciences. Federal regulations currently encompass significant 

safeguards for individual privacy while allowing needed opportunities for knowledge, quality 

control, and advancement. State laws and local policies may severely restrict or entirely 

preclude use of materials, even anonymous specimens destined for disposal. This precludes 

meaningful advancement within forensic science and the quality assurance programs needed 

within the justice system. Furthermore, it often denies opportunities for families who may want 

to participate in research protocols from doing so. A critical step in supporting research is 

alignment of local and state regulations that recognizes the critical role of forensic research and 

use of research samples, records, images and other media in the advancement of justice and 

health.

Privacy 
SWGMDI’S Research Committee: Report and Recommendations for Research 

(Published 6.5.14) Page 6

For research, all tissues and DNA should be de-identified to protect the privacy of the individual 

and family. Essentially all Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) recognize that in the course of 

research studies, certain findings may come to light that have diagnostic and known 

consequences (e.g., the discovery of a known genetic mutation in a research genetic study for 

postulated/candidate genes in a particular entity with whole genome sequencing). In these 

circumstances, mechanisms are generally stipulated for reporting back to the medical examiner 

such information, if a unique identifier for the decedent is available in the central research office.

Informed Consent

An IRB within the forensic community or regional forensic research center is needed for forensic 

research to include informed consent mechanisms. It is important to point out that decedents are 

generally not considered to be human subjects for the purposes of research, and therefore are not 

generally under the purview of IRBs (reviewed in 3). Most IRBs, however, are willing to give 

advice even when the proposed study is granted an exemption. It is also important to remember 

that decedents did not arrive at the MDI facility under consented circumstances and the MDI 

office does not own the body and research projects on bodies or tissues should be carefully 

considered. If a particular type of proposed testing or examination for research purposes is not 

being performed during the normal course of a medicolegal death investigation or autopsy, it 

would be prudent to consider obtaining consent from the next of kin even if not required by law.

Studies related to sudden unexpected death in infants have demonstrated that research involving 

donated autopsy tissues is generally acceptable to families when they are sensitively approached 

and thoroughly informed by an experienced counselor from a familiar and supportive medical 

community (4, 5). Parents feel it is critical, however, that they are involved in all decisions 

about tissue retention and that the medical communities not “betray” them by performing 

research without their explicit consent, because they understandably feel protective of their 

children even after death (5, 6).

The establishment of these mechanisms is essential to the performance of research in forensic 

offices, including with academic partners, and to the donation of autopsy tissue and DNA 

samples to national banks. There are several current informed consent models: 

1) State law for research without direct parental consent in sudden and 

unexpected infant death in California with the infant autopsy law; 

2) Delayed request for informed consent of parents of children dying suddenly 

and unexpectedly after tissue samples harvested for research at the time of 

autopsy with IRB approval, with research permitted when consent obtained 

months after death; and with the discard of saved tissues when consent not 

given, in New Jersey; 
SWGMDI’S Research Committee: Report and Recommendations for Research 

(Published 6.5.14) Page 7

3) The request for parental consent for research tissues in sudden and unexpected 

death in infants in southern Florida by representatives of donor organ banks at 

the time of autopsy, in addition to request for organs, with submission of 

tissues to the national developmental tissue and brain bank at the University of 

Maryland according to its protocols (success rate, ~20% in first year of 

operation)(7); 

4) The request for parental consent for research tissues in sudden and unexpected 

death at the time of death by study coordinators in specific catchment areas of 

the Northern Plains under the auspice of a NIH-funded study of infant 

mortality and SIDS (success rate, ~50%)(8).

State laws are the optimal mechanism because of the inherent difficulties in requesting tissues for 

research within hours of the death. This is particularly the situation in the medicolegal death 

investigation systems in which virtually all the deaths are sudden, unexpected, and under 

traumatic circumstances as in the suicide, homicide, or catastrophic accident of a loved one, and/

or the sudden death of a seemingly healthy child. In addition to state laws, IRBs within the 

medicolegal death investigation system or their partnered academic institutions are needed to 

provide oversight concerning the need for and integrity of individual research projects. Issues 

related to research, for example, in socio-economically disadvantaged populations have been 

recently summarized (6). In this regard, IRBs serve as protectors of these populations in 

research and can be depended upon to do so in forensic research. The details of particular 

research in the medicolegal death investigation system need to be tailored for each system and 

research project.

In terms of who should ask for consent for research from families at the time of autopsy of their 

loved one, it is difficult for all, including trained health professionals, to ask for consent in a 

period of confusion and despair at the sudden loss. It has been suggested that parents who have 

experienced the death of a child be involved in the consent process, because they have 

experienced a similar loss.

Ways to Support Research through Access to Grant Funding

Investigations in MDI and forensic pathology (FP) are complicated by a paucity of funding 

sources and agencies compared to other medical and social research fields. This is compounded 

by the low appropriations to the few agencies, like the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), that do 

have a research portfolio in forensic science. Funding resources are critical to advancement. 

Several mechanisms could be utilized in promotion of research into areas of MDI and FP. First, 

funding within existing agencies, such as NIJ and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC) should be augmented, including previous public health and violence surveillance 

programs. Another key step is the recognition and incorporation of MDI and FP systems into 

existing research portfolios of federal agencies such as NIH, Department of Defense (DOD), 
SWGMDI’S Research Committee: Report and Recommendations for Research 

(Published 6.5.14) Page 8

CDC, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Food & Drug Administration 

(FDA), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Department of Transportation (DOT)

and others. Sudden deaths from a variety of causes, such as substance abuse and violence, all 

have significant portfolios in existing federal programs. Integration of the clinical setting of 

forensic and MDI practices accomplishes goals of clinical translational research. The breadth of 

potential with genomics of sudden death, aging and pharmacogenomics would be greatly 

enhanced by rigorous inclusion of MDI systems.

Gap Analysis to Identify Research Priorities

SWGMDI recognizes the needs for specific focus areas of research for forensic pathology and 

the medicolegal death investigation profession to validate scientific methods, improve the 

accuracy of diagnoses, and improve the efficiency of death investigations.

The following recommendations were developed from data gathered from surveys conducted by 

National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) in 2009 and SWGMDI in 2011.

Results Summary of the Two Surveys:

 The NAME Survey of 2009 received 94 respondents via NAME members identifying 

themselves as: Administrator (3), Full-time Forensic Pathologist (FP) (70), Part-time FP 

(13), Investigator (2), retired (5), no information (1). Their percentages of time devoted to 

research at the time of the survey were: None (31), less than 10% (44), 10-25% (8), 25-

50% (2), 50-90% (3), information not available (6). The type of research activities of the 

respondents included: Basic science (7), Clinical (17), Translational (5), Descriptive 

Studies (33), not available or not applicable (32).

The NAME survey of 2009 reported the highest areas of research priority to be described 

as: 

1. Child Abuse with head trauma 73/94 (78%) 

2. Postmortem toxicology 55/94 (59%) 

3. Genetic/Metabolic Abnormalities 50/94 (53%) 

4. Injury Aging/Dating 38/94 (40%) 

5. Pharmacogenomics 26/94 (28%)

6. Child abuse without head trauma 26/94 (28%) 

7. Postmortem interval/time of death 24/94 (26%) 

8. Undetermined cause of death 18/94 (19%) and 

9. Emerging Issues 18/94 (19%)

 The SWGMDI Survey of 2011 received 121 respondents through an online survey 

distributed to NAME, International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners 

(IAC&ME) and American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators (ABMDI)

memberships. Respondents were asked to list their top three priorities for areas requiring 
SWGMDI’S Research Committee: Report and Recommendations for Research 

(Published 6.5.14) Page 9

research in the field of forensic pathology and medicolegal death investigations. This was 

a descriptive analysis.

1. Systems related 83/121 (69%)

2. Pediatric related 78/121 (64%)- of which 49% were related to pediatric trauma 

and 49% related to SIDS/SUID/Sudden death

3. Toxicology and Drug Related 53/121 (44%)- of which 49% were related to Drug 

Related Deaths and 51% related to Toxicology

4. Types of Death 27/121 (22%)- of which 63% were related to Sudden Death 

5. Time of Death (TOD) Determination (slight overlap with post mortem changes) 

27/121 (22%)

6. Molecular, genetic (also overlaps with sudden deaths, pediatric): 17/121 (14%)

7. Post-mortem changes (specific as opposed to TOD) 14/121 (12%)

8. In custody, restraint related deaths (also some comments in drug / toxicology

related) 14/121 (12%)

9. Injury Aging / Dating of injuries 14/121 (12%)

10. Autopsy alternatives 8/121 (7%)

11. Identification (ID) Related and Mass Fatalities 8/121 (7%) 

12. “Asphyxia” 6/121 (5%)

13. Elder related (also in toxicology and other deaths) 6/121 (5%)

14. Neuropathology related (also overlaps with trauma, pediatric) 6/121 (5%)

15. Suicides 3/121 (2%)

16. Image analysis 1/121 (0.8 %)

17. Bias 1/121 (0.8%)

SWGMDI’s Recommendations for Prioritized Research Focus Areas

Based on these two surveys, the opinions of the SWGMDI Board, and public comment, we 

recommend the following to be considered for priority focus areas for research to improve the 

scientific merit of forensic pathology and medicolegal death investigation:
SWGMDI’S Research Committee: Report and Recommendations for Research 

(Published 6.5.14) Page 10

I. System Related Research (to improve the practice and management of medicolegal death 

investigation systems)

A. Identification of funding resources to improve access for research into the MDI 

field

B. Training of coroners and medicolegal death investigators

C. The use of the forensic nurse profession in the field of MDI

D. Standardization of death investigation/forensic pathology 

E. The use of dolls for infant death scene re-enactments

F. Servicing remote areas, including underrepresented or minority populations

G. Quality control for death investigation/autopsy

H. Use of autopsy findings to reduce healthcare costs among the living and benefit 

public health

I. Public education regarding the functions and missions of the medicolegal death 

investigation system

J. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in medicolegal death investigators and 

forensic pathologists

K. Ethics of testimony by MDI professionals

L. Death certification to improve accuracy of death statistics

M. Determining optimal procedures for obtaining consent from next-of-kin for the 

use of autopsy tissues for research

N. Standardization of Institutional Review Board review across death investigation 

systems

II. Scientific Related Research (to improve the accuracy of cause and manner of death 

determination by supporting the findings and analyses in MDI with evidence based research 

rather than opinion based unproven conclusions)
SWGMDI’S Research Committee: Report and Recommendations for Research 

(Published 6.5.14) Page 11

A. Pediatric forensic pathology research to improve the accuracy of cause and 

manner of death certification: Pediatric Forensic Pathology was rated as the second and 

top priority among the two surveys of MDI professionals assessing areas of critical 

research needs:

Unexplained deaths of infants and children represent the largest group of undetermined 

deaths in the field of MDI. Yet, given this overwhelming public health problem, the MDI 

community lacks evidence based research and standard practices for these investigations.

This has likely resulted in inaccurate diagnoses and poor national statistics to address 

public health issues.

Specific areas in pediatric forensic pathology requiring additional focus are: 

1. Autopsy standards and neuropathology

2. Sudden death

3. Child abuse

4. Cause of Death (COD) in unsafe sleep environments (e.g., bed sharing, 

soft bedding, etc.) and the diagnosis of asphyxia 

5. Head and general trauma

6. Retinal hemorrhages

B. Toxicology/Drug research to better understand the contribution of toxic 

substances to pathology and death:

1. Marijuana/prescription drugs and driving

2. Rates of drug clearance

3. Interpreting toxic levels (especially with combinations)

4. Pediatric toxicology interpretation

5. Toxicology and natural disease interaction

6. Postmortem redistribution

7. Pharmacogenomics

8. Testing matrices

9. Alternative sample types
SWGMDI’S Research Committee: Report and Recommendations for Research 

(Published 6.5.14) Page 12

C. Molecular/Genetic studies research to evaluate the recent scientific advancements 

as they relate to the evaluation of genetic causes of sudden death and how the MDI 

community can, with improved accessibility, utilize these advances to benefit MDI’s 

cause and manner of death determination and the protection of at-risk living blood 

relatives:

1. Cardiac channelopathies

2. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathies

3. Metabolic diseases

D. Postmortem changes research to more accurately estimate the postmortem 

interval:

1. Troponin-I

2. Body temperature at scene

3. Microclimatology

4. Taphonomy

E. Research to establish the diagnostic criteria for the accurate determination of 

cause of death:

1. Exsanguination

2. Starvation

3. Dehydration

4. Hypoglycemia

5. Anaphylaxis

6. Hypoxia/asphyxia

7. Acidosis

8. Sudden death with fatty liver

9. Drowning

F. In Custody Death research to understand the body’s physiological responses to 

“restraint” as it relates to sudden death:
SWGMDI’S Research Committee: Report and Recommendations for Research 

(Published 6.5.14) Page 13

1. Physiologic stress of restraint

2. Conducted Electrical Device (CED) and mechanism of associated deaths

3. Restraint asphyxia

4. Excited Delirium

G. Mass fatalities and identification research to improve the efficient functioning of 

varied MDI systems in the event of a mass fatality with accurate and expedient 

identification and recovery of human remains:

1. Methods to expedite DNA identification

2. Field test for human vs. nonhuman remains

H. Elder death research to provide support for the protection of this vulnerable 

population with accurate cause and manner of death determinations:

1. Abuse

2. Hospice overdoses

3. Communication with adult protective services (APS) 

I. Neuropathology research to accurately determine the source of brain and spinal 

cord trauma, disease, and congenital abnormalities, as well as to assess the validity and 

reliability of current methods used in MDI:

1. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy

2. Hypoxic encephalopathy

3. Source of bleeding in subdural hemorrhage

4. Dating of subdural hemorrhage

5. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP)

J. Dating of injuries research to understand the temporal healing characteristics of 

antemortem, perimortem and postmortem injuries that is lacking in the current medical 

literature and limits the accurate analysis of autopsy findings

K. Autopsy alternatives research to evaluate new techniques and science that have 

the potential to improve accuracy and efficiency in MDI:
SWGMDI’S Research Committee: Report and Recommendations for Research 

(Published 6.5.14) Page 14

1. Postmortem computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI)

2. Laparoscopic procedures

L. Bias research to evaluate the validity and reliability of MDI methods that are 

lacking (i.e., different observers coming to different conclusions despite using the same 

dataset)

M. Image analysis research to understand how to apply modern image analysis and 

technology to support the field of MDI

N. Suicide research to better understand its psychological aspects (i.e., the 

“psychological autopsy”)

SWGMDI recommends that these focus areas be utilized in allocating research funds to 

provide the most benefit to the field, as well as recognizing the areas in greatest need of 

evidence based research in MDI. SWGMDI also recommends these focus areas be 

reevaluated biannually to take into account scientific progress and emerging issues in the 

field.

References

1. Lathrop SL. Forensic pathology and epidemiology, public health, and population-based 

research, Acad Forensic Pathol 2011; 1:282-287.

2. Nolte KB. Research issues in forensic pathology: a survey of academic institutions 

employing forensic pathologists. Hum Pathol 2004; 35:532-535.

3. Weedn VW, Holdsworth MT, Barron M. Legal and ethical considerations in forensic 

pathology. Acad Forensic Pathol 2011: 1:288-301.

4. Elliott JG, Ford DL, Beard JF, Fitzgerald KN, Robinson PJ, James AL. Informed consent for 

the study of retained tissues from postmortem examination following sudden infant death. 

J Med Ethics 2008; 34:742–6. 

5. Millar T, Walker R, Arango JC, Ironside JW, Harrison DJ, MacIntyre DJ, et al. Tissue and 

organ donation in forensic pathology: the MRC Sudden Death Brain and Tissue Bank. J 

Pathol 2007; 213: 369–75. 

6. Odendaal HJ, Elliott A, Kinney HC, Human M, Gaspar D, Petersen D, Randall BB, Dempers J 

for the PASS Network.. Obtaining consent for autopsy research in unexpected death in 

early life: Challenges in the socio-economically disadvantaged. Obstetr Gynecol 2011; 

117: 167-71.
SWGMDI’S Research Committee: Report and Recommendations for Research 

(Published 6.5.14) Page 15

7. Hyma BA. Tissue collection for SIDS research: Presentation at the International Stillbirth, 

SIDS and Infant Mortality meeting, Baltimore MD, October 2012.

8. Kinney HC. Personal communication, unpublished data. Harvard Medical School. May 17, 

2012.

The SWGMDI’s Research Committee members who participated in preparation of this report 

include:

Laura Crandall, MA

Marie Herrmann, MD

R. Gibson Parrish, MD

Keith Pinckard, MD, PhD (Presiding Officer)

Mary Ann Sens, MD, PhD

Stacy Drake (Advisor)

Hannah Kinney, MD (Advisor)

Evan Matshes, MD (Advisor)

This document was approved for final publication by the SWGMDI Board on June 5, 2014.

At that time, the SWGMDI Board Members were:

Barbara Butcher, MPH

Steve Clark, PhD

Laura Crandall, MA

Tim Davidson, MBA-HA

John Fudenberg

Roberta Geiselhart, BSN

Randy Hanzlick, MD

Marie Herrmann, MD

Julie Howe, MBA

Bruce Hyma, MD

Donald Jason, MD JD

Lauri McGivern

R. Gibson Parrish, MD

Keith Pinckard, MD PhD

Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, MD

Mary Ann Sens, MD PhD

Lindsey Thomas, MD

Frederick Upchurch

Margaret Warner, PhD

Amy Wyman