The Forensic Ethics of Scientific Communication
| Author | Tony Ward |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00220183221143985 |
| Published date | 01 February 2023 |
| Date | 01 February 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The Forensic Ethics of Scientific
Communication
To n y Wa r d
Northumbria University, UK
Abstract
An important part of the work of forensic scientists is communicating accurate information to
lay factfinders under conditions of uncertainty. It is an ethically demanding role as it obliges
scientists to disclose information that may call their own authority into question. Similar issues
arise in other areas of applied science, for example climate science. This article builds the eth-
ical framework for scientific communication under uncertainty proposed by Keohane, Lane
and Oppenheimer and argues that with some modifications their work provides useful guid-
ance for forensic scientists. It also questions whether the current system of Streamlined
Forensic Reporting is compatible with that framework.
Keywords
Forensic science, expert evidence, professional ethics, Streamlined Forensic Reporting
‘Forensic ethics’, a term hitherto used mainly in relation to forensic psychiatry, addresses the relation
between ethics of professions that provide evidence to the courts and the demands placed on them by
the law.
1
This article discusses the adaptation to legal contexts of the ethics of scientific communication.
The duty to communicate their findings clearly to police, defendants, the courts and other stake-
holders is arguably the most important and most onerous ethical responsibility of forensic scientists.
2
While the public have a right to expect scientists in general –or at least those whose research is pub-
licly funded –to communicate their findings clearly and accurately to non-scientists who have an inter-
est to them, forensic science is unusual in the degree to which the communication of information
figures as a core skill of the profession,
3
as well as in the dire consequences that can follow from mis-
leading or unclear communication.
4
Corresponding author:
Tony Ward, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Email: tony.ward@northumbria.ac.uk
1. PJ Candilis, R Weinstock and R Martinez, Forensic Ethics and the Expert Witness (Springer 2007); DN Weisstub (ed.) ‘Dossier:
Forensic Ethics’(2016) 2(1) Ethics, Medicine and Public Health 1.
2. S Willis, ‘Forensic Science, Ethics and Criminal Justice’in Jim Fraser and Robin Williams (eds.) Handbook of Forensic Science
(Willan 2009) 529–530.
3. BA Bechky, Blood, Powder and Residue: How Crime Labs Translate Evidence into Proof (Princeton University Press 2020).
4. BL Garrett and PJ Neufeld, ‘Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions’(2009) 95 Va L Rev 1.
Article
The Journal of Criminal Law
2023, Vol. 87(1) 3–17
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00220183221143985
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial