---
title: "Forensic science"
chunk: 7/9
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:55:21.311464+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

== Questionable techniques ==
Some forensic techniques, believed to be scientifically sound at the time they were used, have turned out later to have much less scientific merit or none. Some such techniques include:

Comparative bullet-lead analysis was used by the FBI for over four decades, starting with the John F. Kennedy assassination in 1963.  The theory was that each batch of ammunition possessed a chemical makeup so distinct that a bullet could be traced back to a particular batch or even a specific box.  Internal studies and an outside study by the National Academy of Sciences found that the technique was unreliable due to improper interpretation, and the FBI abandoned the test in 2005.
Forensic dentistry has come under fire:  in at least three cases bite-mark evidence has been used to convict people of murder who were later freed by DNA evidence. A 1999 study by a member of the American Board of Forensic Odontology found a 63 percent rate of false identifications and is commonly referenced within online news stories and conspiracy websites. The study was based on an informal workshop during an ABFO meeting, which many members did not consider a valid scientific setting. The theory is that each person has a unique and distinctive set of teeth, which leave a pattern after biting someone. They analyze the dental characteristics such as size, shape, and arch form.
Police Access to Genetic Genealogy Databases: There are privacy concerns with the police being able to access personal genetic data that is on genealogy services. Individuals can become criminal informants to their own families or to themselves simply by participating in genetic genealogy databases. The Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) is a database that the FBI uses to hold genetic profiles of all known felons, misdemeanants, and arrestees. Some people argue that individuals who are using genealogy databases should have an expectation of privacy in their data that is or may be violated by genetic searches by law enforcement. These different services have warning signs about potential third parties using their information, but most individuals do not read the agreement thoroughly. According to a study by Christi Guerrini, Jill Robinson, Devan Petersen, and Amy McGuire, they found that the majority of the people who took the survey support police searches of genetic websites that identify genetic relatives. People who responded to the survey are more supportive of police activities using genetic genealogy when it is for the purpose of identifying offenders of violent crimes, suspects of crimes against children or missing people. The data from the surveys that were given show that individuals are not concerned about police searches using personal genetic data if it is justified. It was found in this study that offenders are disproportionally low-income and black and the average person of genetic testing is wealthy and white. The results from the study had different results. In 2016, there was a survey called the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) that was provided by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics. In that survey, it was found that 1.3% of people aged 12 or older were victims of violent crimes, and 8.85 of households were victims of property crimes. There were some issues with this survey though. The NCVS produces only the annual estimates of victimization. The survey that Christi Guerrini, Jill Robinson, Devan Petersen, and Amy McGuire produced asked the participants about the incidents of victimization over one's lifetime. Their survey also did not restrict other family members to one household. Around 25% of people who responded to the survey said that they have had family members that have been employed by law enforcement which includes security guards and bailiffs. Throughout these surveys, it has been found that there is public support for law enforcement to access genetic genealogy databases.

== Litigation science ==
"Litigation science" describes analysis or data developed or produced expressly for use in a trial versus those produced in the course of independent research. This distinction was made by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals when evaluating the admissibility of experts.
This uses demonstrative evidence, which is evidence created in preparation of trial by attorneys or paralegals.

== Demographics ==
As of 2025, there are currently an estimated 18,500 forensic science technicians in the United States.

== Media impact ==
Real-life crime scene investigators and forensic scientists warn that popular television shows do not give a realistic picture of the work, often wildly distorting its nature, and exaggerating the ease, speed, effectiveness, drama, glamour, influence and comfort level of their jobs—which they describe as far more mundane, tedious and boring.
Some claim these modern TV shows have changed individuals' expectations of forensic science, sometimes unrealistically—an influence termed the "CSI effect".
Further, research has suggested that public misperceptions about criminal forensics can create, in the mind of a juror, unrealistic expectations of forensic evidence—which they expect to see before convicting—implicitly biasing the juror towards the defendant. Citing the "CSI effect", at least one researcher has suggested screening jurors for their level of influence from such TV programs.
Further, research has shown that newspaper media has been found to shape readers general knowledge and perceptions of science and technology in a rather positive way. It could lead to support of it due to the interest readers may obtain and seek further knowledge on the topic.