When you click on a sponsoring school or program advertised on our site, or fill out a form to request information from a sponsoring school, we may earn a commission. View our advertising disclosure for more details.
In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences disquieted the scientific and legal communities, reporting that the vast majority of forensic methods had not been sufficiently tested to establish scientific validity. The NAS stated, “With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis…no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source.”
The most startling implication of this report was that it called into question the outcomes of thousands of criminal cases relying on these types of evidence, not to mention the futures of countless experts in the implicated forensic subfields. And over the past few years, there have been echoes of the NAS bombshell, which have cast doubt over long-used methods in the discipline.
In 2015, the Justice Department and the FBI admitted that their elite forensics unit had given faulty testimony in court on the results of hair analyses for two decades, including in the cases of 32 defendants who had since been put to death (The Atlantic). Most recently, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released a startling report in September 2016, entitled Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. This study summarized the scientific underpinnings of commonly used forensic methods. It had cast particular doubt on bite-mark analysis, which lacks feature-comparison trustworthiness (i.e., the ability to differentiate between different sources’ teeth impressions). Naturally, this conclusion is being fought viciously by credentialed forensic odontologists, who are feeling a threat to their professional futures.
PCAST evaluated forensics methods according to two types of validity: foundational and applied. ‘Foundational validity’ refers to whether a technique is scientifically sound, replicable, and accurate in a lab environment. ‘Applied validity’ is whether a technique’s effectiveness can be used in the real world outside of a scientific setting. The report’s stunning conclusion was that “…many forensic feature-comparison methods have historically been assumed rather than established to be foundationally valid based on appropriate empirical evidence” (emphasis added).
In fact, the only forensics technique to have established both foundational and applied validity was single-sourced DNA analysis. Fingerprints or multiple-source DNA evidence, by comparison, were found to only have foundational validity, and ballistics identification only had the potential for foundational validity.
Here is a simple chart of PCAST findings, updated with 2026 status:
| Forensic Method | 2016 PCAST Status | 2026 Status |
|---|---|---|
| Bite-mark analysis | “PCAST finds that bitemark analysis does not meet the scientific standards for foundational validity, and is far from meeting such standards.” | Still limited; NIST 2022 review confirmed insufficient data, AI alternatives emerging |
| Single-source DNA analysis and simple two-source mixtures | Holds foundational and applied validity | Remains gold standard |
| Multiple-source DNA analysis and complex mixtures | Shows promise, but still needs to establish definitive foundational and applied validity | Improved with NGS; black-box studies complete |
| Tire and shoe-mark | Requires further empirical testing to establish any validity | Database expanded; promising with 3D scanning |
| Fingerprints | Foundationally valid, but still needs to establish applied validity due to three problems: confirmation bias, contextual bias, and lack of examiner proficiency testing | AI improves accuracy; proficiency testing standard since 2023 |
| Firearms | Requires further empirical testing to establish any validity, although courts should be able to determine whether evidence is deemed admissible | 3D imaging validated in NIJ trials |
While the findings seem troubling for the future of forensics, it’s important to note that just because the twin standards of validity haven’t been established doesn’t imply that they’re theoretically impossible (except perhaps in the case of bite-mark analysis); rather PCAST is emphasizing the need for further scientific testing both in and out of a laboratory setting in order to establish responsible forensics methods.
Why is this important? The obvious answer is that it would be unethical to convict a criminal based on shoddy evidence, which, in addition to the aforementioned FBI hair analysis scandal, has occurred far too frequently in the US justice system. As a proof of point, the Innocence Project database shows several cases where improper forensic methods helped convict defendants, later overturned by DNA analysis as of 2026. Forensic evidence is still crucial to exonerate or convict criminals, especially in cases with no eyewitnesses or video footage. It helps legal teams to reconstruct crime scenes and tell stories encased in drops of blood and shards of glass, even when the evidence is invisible.
Forensics Colleges interviewed three prominent professors on the future of their field in the wake of the PCAST report. What follows is a discussion of what aspiring forensics students can do to ensure that they’re channeling their efforts into trusted, reliable branches of this exciting field. Though these interviews are from 2017, their views still guide students today amid ongoing research.
Interviews with Three Forensics Experts
Three leading professors graciously agreed to interviews and discussed their thoughts on the future of forensics in the wake of the PCAST report.
Dr. Susan Walsh, Professor of Biology at Indiana University, Indianapolis
After earning her PhD in forensic genetics, Dr. Walsh joined Yale University as a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Anthropology. She’s authored countless scholarly journal articles and book chapters in her field, and has received prestigious research grants from the National Institute of Justice, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Justice. In addition to teaching, she runs the Walsh DNA Phenotyping Laboratory, which collaborates with universities worldwide to uncover the complex genetic underpinnings of physical appearance.
ForensicsColleges.com: In 10 years, what forensic methods do you think will be discontinued (if any)?
I don’t know of any methods that could potentially be discontinued; there may be several that require the ‘per expert witness opinion’ attached to the report, and they may eventually be replaced by more accurate methods, but I can’t tell for sure. As our technology in terms of electronics, pattern recognition, and computers gets better, these types of expert methods become better, but they are hardly a hard science.
ForensicsColleges.com: What newer forensic science techniques do you believe hold promise for the future (if any)?
I will simply speak of biology, as that is my area. I do believe phenotyping and ancestry prediction will become more popular (I hope!); we are certainly striving for this in terms of research goals by developing prediction models for pigmentation, age, and hair structure, with more to come (face eventually in 10-20 years). Using biomolecules (DNA/RNA) in other ways, such as familial searching (standard STRs*, but different statistical approaches), biological sample type/time deposition (using circadian biomarkers), and expression/methylation analyses…The more research, the better our methodologies will become.
ForensicsColleges.com: What advice would you give to students in forensics?
Do a dual major, or major in biology/chemistry with a special focus in forensics. Try not to just go for forensics alone as a degree. Having a solid and strong background in the core topics in biology and chemistry will make you a better forensic scientist. That being said, you still need training in forensic interpretation and methodologies. Best advice is to do a core degree [in science] and specialize in forensics as an MS; that way, something you learn/understand in the bigger scheme of things in biology/chemistry, you may find applicable in the niche of forensics that hasn’t been thought of before.
*An STR (standard tandem repeat) is a segment of repeated sequences in DNA that is not connected to any human trait, but is variable and inheritable.
Her Walsh DNA Phenotyping Lab continues advancing pigmentation, hair, and ancestry models, with NIJ-validated predictions in 2026.
Sara Katsanis, Research Assistant Professor at Northwestern University and Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago
Sara Katsanis joined Duke University in 2009, where she researched the policy implications and applications of genetic testing in law enforcement and medicine. She received her MS in genetics from Brunel University and has worked as a DNA analyst, a genotyping facilities manager, and a lab manager in DNA diagnostics at Johns Hopkins University. From 2009 to 2019, Katsanis was a faculty member at Duke University and transitioned in 2019 to Northwestern and Lurie Children’s in Chicago.
ForensicsColleges.com: In 10 years, what forensic methods do you think will be discontinued (if any)?
I always hesitate to predict the future. There are a lot of different things that could happen, relying on many factors including funding and the priorities of the federal government…I do not think that short tandem repeats [STRs] will go away, but I think our methods for testing for STRs will be vastly different in the coming decade…We’re going to be looking at next-generation sequencing, SNIPs, and other techniques for interpreting those short tandem repeats.
ForensicsColleges.com: What newer forensic science techniques do you believe hold promise for the future (if any)?
My research looks at kinship analysis primarily because I’m interested in human identification of missing persons and in human trafficking. That requires looking at relationships between individuals rather than a match of a crime sample to a suspect. I think that there are going to be a lot of improvements in the coming years, looking at kinships. STRs are not a good method for looking at relationships; it’s better to look at lots of other markers.
ForensicsColleges.com: What advice would you give to students in forensics?
I really wish that the young forensic scientists would be trained in genetics and not primarily in law enforcement…Students need a better understanding of the scientific method. What I often say to my students at Duke is that forensic science is not always science; sometimes it’s analysis. What science does is it disproves theories, and what forensic analysts do is try to prove their hypotheses…A ‘match’ by definition means you’re trying to prove a hypothesis. [That approach] can result in errors and bias. The majority of DNA analysts that I have met have trained as law enforcement.
Emerging forensic genomics tools, including next-generation sequencing and microhaplotype panels, are increasingly used to support kinship analysis in difficult missing persons cases.
Jessica Gabel Cino, Former Professor at Georgia State University College of Law
Jessica Gabel Cino received her JD magna cum laude from the University of Miami School of Law, where she co-founded and served as executive director of the Wrongful Convictions Project, an organization that assists innocent criminal defendants. As a professor of law, her courses focused on forensic evidence, forensic medicine, and other topics. Jessica specializes in high-stakes civil and criminal litigation matters by capitalizing on her extensive experience to serve clients across all economic sectors, jurisdictions, and industries. She leads corporate investigations, high-profile investigations, government investigations, internal investigations, Title IX investigations, and higher education investigations.
ForensicsColleges.com: In 10 years, what methods do you think will be discontinued (if any)?
Bitemarks are likely on the way out. It’s not under the ‘discontinued’ category quite yet, but it’s getting there.
ForensicsColleges.com: What newer forensic science techniques do you believe hold promise for the future (if any)?
It’s difficult to pinpoint one technique, but I do think we’ll see some game-changing developments outside of DNA. I think traditional trace evidence will start to encompass more chemical compound work (e.g., condom lubricants in sexual assault cases). Digital evidence is another area where we’ll probably see lots of development in everything from crime scene mapping to geo-locating suspects through their electronic footprints. Statistics across all fields will be vital.
ForensicsColleges.com: What advice would you give to forensics students?
Take hard science courses—chemistry, biology, and physics. Most degree programs require them, but take more than what’s required. It will be so valuable in practice to have had additional time in the lab and to be familiar with processes outside your subject matter area. Don’t forget to take advanced statistics and some intro computer science courses as well.
“The NIST 2023 reviewconfirmed bite-mark analysis lacks scientific validity and is rarely admitted in courts today (e.g., Louisiana 2025 vacatur); digital evidence and chemical trace analysis have since expanded significantly (NIJ plan).”
Conclusions: Where Does the Forensics Field Go From Here?
In addition to tracking cases of flawed forensics, there are some basic steps individuals and institutions can take to ensure the continued public trust and faith in forensics. Here is a brief summary of some proposals from the Innocence Project:
1) Establish a national forensic science body to identify research needs; set priorities; assess the validity and reliability of methods; and provide quality assurance through institutional accreditation and professional credentialing.
2) Make independent advisory boards at the local level to guarantee adequate resources in forensics.
3) Enforce existing legislation, such as the Justice for All Act (2004), which makes federal funding available only to states with proper oversight in crime labs.
4) Support the NIJ Forensic Science Strategic Research Plan 2022-2026, which continues improving standards and validation.
Lastly, the White House in 2016 offered several recommendations to various organizations, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Laboratory, and the Attorney General:
- NIST – Perform regular evaluations on the validity of forensics techniques, focusing in particular on DNA analysis of complex mixtures, fingerprints, and firearms
- OSTP – Lead the development of a national forensic science research strategy
- FBI – Coordinate efforts to improve forensics methods, especially latent-fingerprint analysis
- Attorney General – Advocate for the use of expert testimony from only scientifically valid methods of inquiry
The recommendations have largely been implemented:
- NIST regularly evaluates DNA mixtures, fingerprints, and firearms.
- NIJ leads national research.
- The FBI improved latent fingerprint analysis.
- The Attorney General pushes scientifically valid testimony only.
Notably, the Forensic Science and Standards Act of 2016 (proposed after PCAST to boost federal research) did not pass. The active NIJ 2022-2026 plan fills that gap as of 2026.
Jocelyn Blore
Chief Content StrategistJocelyn Blore is the chief content officer of Sechel Ventures and the co-author of the Women Breaking Barriers series. She graduated summa cum laude from UC Berkeley and traveled the world for five years. She also worked as an addiction specialist for two years in San Francisco. She’s interested in how culture shapes individuals and systems within societies—one of the many themes she writes about in her blog, Blore’s Razor (Instagram: @bloresrazor). She has served as managing editor for several healthcare websites since 2015.