Taking the Initiative: Practitioners Who Perform Frontline Research
by Lois A. Tully, Ph.D.
About the Author
Dr. Tully is acting chief of the Investigative and Forensic
Sciences Division at the National Institute of Justice.
In the past, the line between practitioners who work in a
crime laboratory and researchers who work in a university
lab or technology firm was always fairly bright. That line
has begun to blur, however, as more and more practitioners
take the initiative to perform inhouse research that leads
to new forensic tools and technologies.
Although many practitioners who work on the front lines of
criminal justice have compelling research ideas, these often
must take a back seat to the reality in our Nations crime
labs, where shelves of evidence await testing and there is
daily pressure from agencies and the communities they serve.
Crime laboratory professionals may realize that research is
the key to long-term solutions, but with limited resources
and overwhelming caseloads, what can they do to move a great
research idea from their heads to the laboratory bench?
In recent years, an increasing number of crime lab practitioners
have received funding from such agencies as the National
Institute of Justice (NIJ) to help them perform inhouse
research. Here are a few of their stories.
Eric Buel, Ph.D., has seen forensic science progress from
the days when identifying blood types was state-of-the-art
to today, when DNA can be used to identify a person with
virtual certainty. In 2000, Buel, who now serves as director
of the crime lab at the Vermont Department of Public Safety,
wanted to explore promising new technologies to improve the
efficiency and efficacy of the human DNA quantification test,
which determines if evidence collected from a crime scene
is from a human and whether there is enough of it to develop
a DNA profile. Buels search for help led him to NIJ, which
funded his development of a new human DNA quantification
method.[1] Now his
Vermont laboratory and other crime labs routinely use this
method.
Tom Parsons, Ph.D., faced a similar dilemma. After several
years of working with ancient DNA at the Smithsonian Institution,
Parsons took a job at the Armed Forces DNA Identification
Laboratory (AFDIL), where he and his team were using
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)[2]
to identify the skeletal remains of soldiers killed in the
Vietnam, Korean, and other wars. Some of the remains, having
been exposed to environmental elements for many years, had
severely damaged DNA. As a result, even the most sophisticated
mtDNA technologies could not always yield sufficient
information to make an identification. Nevertheless, Parsons
believed it was possible to boost the power of mtDNA and
provide more complete profiles of the soldiers. He also knew
that doing such research would take money, people, and many
months of experiments. Parsons turned to NIJ, and with a
grant, he and his fellow scientists at AFDIL explored a novel
way to capture more information from mtDNA. This work helped
identify the remains of several soldiers, including one killed
in World War II.[3]
Heather Miller Coyle, Ph.D., had spent much of her academic
career studying plant sciences, so she never thought that she
would end up working in a crime lab. After completing her Ph.D.
in plant molecular biology, she spent a few years in the
pharmaceutical industry untilseeking a way to use her
science background to better serve the publicshe took
a job as a criminalist in the DNA unit of the Connecticut
Department of Public Safety. There, her supervisor encouraged
her to look for ways to expand the labs capabilities. This
opened the door for Miller Coyle to team up with scientists
from the University of New Haven and, with support from NIJ,
explore technologies for plant DNA profiling that can assist
in criminal investigations. Miller Coyle has since conducted
a workshop to teach other crime lab personnel when and how to
use the tools she developed under her NIJ
grant.[4]
Helping Practitioners Take Action
In recent years, the entire criminal justice community has
benefited from research done inhouse by crime lab professionals
like Buel, Parsons, and Miller Coyle through NIJ support.
In the years since writing their NIJ grant proposals, these
practitioners have published their research in peer-reviewed
scientific journals, and more importantly, their contributions
have been invaluable to the broader forensic DNA community.
NIJs support of practitioners with promising research ideas
goes well beyond DNA. The Institutes forensic research
portfolio extends from arson to anthropology, handwriting
to handguns, methamphetamine to maggots, and toxicology to
trace evidence. Here are a few more examples of how NIJ
grants are being used to foster practitioner research:
- In Washington, criminals who manufacture methamphetamine
seemed to stay one step ahead of law enforcement by
continuously changing their methods of manufacture.
This was making it difficult for police to know what
to look for and how to test for it. To meet this
challenge, David Northrop, Ph.D., analyst at the
Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory Division, used
an NIJ grant to develop better ways to detect and
identify substances that are characteristic of
methamphetamine manufacturing processes.[5]
- In the Georgia Bureau of Investigation crime lab, George
Herrin, Ph.D., and his colleagues explored a more effective
method of detecting drugs and poisons in autopsy samples.
With NIJ support, they developed a new technology that
screens for more than 100 drugs and poisons and is up
to 50 percent faster than existing technology.[6]
- Scientists in the crime lab at the California Department
of Justice developed an improved tool for capturing,
analyzing, and comparing impression evidence left at
crime scenes. This tool can enhance forensic comparisons
of such items as tire treads and footwear
impressions.[7]
- In another section of the crime lab at the California
Department of Justice, scientists developed a new DNA
quantification method that is now being used to develop
profiles in missing persons and unidentified remains
investigations.[8]
NCJ 219605
Sidebar
UNIQUE INSIGHT FROM CRIME LAB PROFESSIONALS
When people think of scientific research, they often think
of work being performed in university laboratories or
technology firms. Although these may be ideal settings
for performing basic research to lay the foundations for
future forensic technologies, crime lab practitioners have
unique insight into the types of applied research that will
provide long-term benefits to their everyday challenges.
For example, crime lab professionals understand what it
takes to create tools capable of withstanding scrutiny in
the courtroom. The types of samples they receive also can
prompt important research and development. Unlike samples
that generally come into clinical or diagnostic labs, crime
lab samples are often poor in quality or limited in amount.
It is not unusual to receive a single hair that was found
in a cap worn by a suspect or a piece of biological evidence
that has been exposed to heat, humidity, or other damaging
elements. Because of the limited quantity or poor condition
of such a sample, a crime lab typically has only one attempt
to perform the test and get a result that may provide a
crucial lead in a criminal investigation.
For More Information
- For general information on NIJs forensic DNA
research and development projects, see
www.dna.gov/research.
Notes
[1] |
Buel, E., Simple,
Rapid, and Accurate Quantitation of Human DNA,
final report submitted to the National Institute
of Justice, August 2006 (NCJ 215340), available at
www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/215340.pdf. |
[2] |
Human DNA can be
extracted from the nucleus of a cell and from another
part of the cell called the mitochondrion.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is present in hundreds
to thousands of copies in each cell, making mtDNA
analysis the most suitable method for testing
samples that are old, degraded, or limited in quantity. |
[3] |
Parsons, T.J.,
Mitochondrial DNA Genome Sequencing and SNP
Assay Development for Increased Power of
Discrimination, final report submitted to the
National Institute of Justice, March 2006 (NCJ 213502),
available at
www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/213502.pdf. |
[4] |
Miller Coyle, H.,
G. Shutler, L. Tully, E. Pagliaro, A. Harper, T.
Palmbach, and H.C. Lee, Validation of a DNA
Method for the Individualization of Plant
Evidence, final report submitted to the National
Institute of Justice, November 2005 (NCJ 211999),
available at
www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211999.pdf. |
[5] |
Northrop, D.M.,
E.C. Person, and L.A. Knops, Capillary Electrophoretic
Analysis of Clandestine Methamphetamine Laboratory
Evidence, final report submitted to the National
Institute of Justice, 2005 (NCJ 219501), available at
www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=241293. |
[6] |
Herrin, G., H.H.
McCurdy, W.H. Wall, and L. Holt, Investigation
of a Unique Adjunct to Enzyme Immunoassay in Order
to Rapidly Perform First-Pass Screening for Drugs
and Poisons in Postmortem Toxicology Cases,
final report submitted to the National Institute
of Justice, 2006 (NCJ 219502), available at
www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=241294. |
[7] |
Hamiel, J.S., and
J.S. Yoshida, Evaluation and Application of
Polynomial Texture Mapping in the Area of Shoe and
Impression Evidence, Journal of Forensic
Identification 57 (3) (May/June 2007): 414-434. |
[8] |
Timken, M.D., K.L.
Swango, C. Orrego, M.D. Chong, and M.R. Buoncristiani,
Quantitation of DNA for Forensic DNA Typing by
qPCR (quantitative PCR): Singleplex and Multiple
Modes for Nuclear and Mitochondrial Genomes, and
the Y Chromosome, final report submitted to
the National Institute of Justice, June 2005
(NCJ 210302), available at
www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/210302.pdf. |