Being called infirm, disparate, fragmented, inconsistent and faulty is not exactly a raving review.

     But that's what a special committee under the National Academy of Sciences, assigned to review the forensic disciplines and report to U.S. Congress, came back with earlier this year.

     It's not as bad as it sounds, though, say forensic experts who testified before the committee in their respective subjects. Much of the report's findings, including calling attention to "fragmentation and inconsistent practices" within forensic science, are not news to those steeped in the industry. Instead, it collectively makes official the reality that within forensics, authorities agree an overhaul is due.

Industry report card

     In 2007, Congress authorized the National Academy of Sciences to create a committee to review forensic practices nationally. The committee's goal was to assess resource needs of the forensic community and make recommendations on how to further and improve the science and practices behind forensics.

     The result of the committee's investigation, its "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward" report, are outlined in the 200-plus page document, serving as a report card on the scientific disciplines with all but DNA analysis coming up short.

     The report states, "with the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, however, 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."

     On first read, that statement could seem rather damning for those working in the nation's nearly 400 forensic crime laboratories. However, industry experts claim the report highlights those disparities that professionals working in forensics know exist.

     Max Houck, director of both the forensic lab and forensic science initiatives at West Virginia University, and who also presented on subject matter expertise for the committee in 2007, says the document is a consensus of forensic professional reflection.

     "It says nothing that hasn't been said in one way or another over the last 20 years," Houck says. "It's just that it came from a much more authoritative source this time.

     Carol Henderson, director of the National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law and a professor of law at Stetson University, regularly speaks at conventions and conferences. Henderson says she agrees with the "Strengthening Forensic Science" report findings.