Review of Research and Development in Forensic Science: University

Review of Research and Development in Forensic Science: University Responses Questions for researchers 1. What work relevant to forensic science is being done in your group/university and what are the opportunities for the future? 2. What previous and current research partnerships do you have with forensic science providers, police forces, the National Policing Improvement Agency, etc.? 3. Can you give good examples in the forensic science field of translation of research into practice, and also any examples where this has been difficult or problematic? 4. What do you see as the opportunities for, and the barriers to, the funding of research relevant to forensic science? 5. What are the important international networks and how useful are they? Do you have any specific international collaborations you would wish to draw to our attention? 6. Are there any other issues relevant to our terms of reference that you would wish to comment on? Review of Research and Development in Forensic Science: Contents Organisation Name Response Type University Anglia Ruskin University Substantive Aston University Substantive Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry Substantive University of Bedfordshire Substantive Birkbeck College Substantive University of Bristol Substantive Brunel University Substantive The Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge Substantive University of Canberra Substantive Canterbury Christ Church University Substantive Cardiff University Substantive Cranfield University Substantive De Montfort University Substantive University of East Anglia Substantive School of Life, Sport and Social Science, Edinburgh Napier Substantive University University of Glamorgan Substantive University of Glasgow Substantive University of Glasgow Substantive Glyndwr University Substantive School of Applied Sciences, University of Huddersfield Substantive University of Hull Substantive Keele University Substantive King’s College, London Substantive King’s College Hospital Dental Age Assessment Team - 2011 Substantive Lancaster University Substantive University of Lincoln Substantive University of Lincoln Substantive Loughborough University Substantive Manchester Metropolitan University Substantive Middlesex University Substantive Northumbria University Centre for Forensic Science Substantive Open University Substantive Department of Statistics, University of Oxford Substantive University of Portsmouth Substantive University of Portsmouth Substantive University of Reading Substantive Psychology Department, Roehampton University Substantive Sheffield Hallam University Substantive Southampton University Substantive Staffordshire University Substantive University of Strathclyde Centre for Forensic Science Substantive University of Sunderland Substantive Teeside University Substantive UCL Jill Dando Institute Centre for the Forensic Sciences Substantive Ulster University Substantive Centre for Information Operations [CIO], University of Wales, Substantive Newport Aberystwyth University Nil Response Edge Hill University Nil Response Oxford Brookes University Nil Response Royal College of Art Nil Response Individuals Dr. Colin Aitken (RSS) Individual, substantive response (in addition to response sent by RSS) David Balding (UCL) Individual response as a researcher Dr. Itiel Dror, University College London Individual, substantive response Professor Peter Gill (University of Individual, substantive response Strathclyde) Dr Karl Harrison This is in addition to the (Cranfield University) comments submitted via the Cranfield University response. Dr Kevin Sullivan Individual, substantive response (Chief Scientist’s Group, FSS) Professor Wesley Vernon Individual, substantive response (Forensic Podiatry) ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY 1. What work relevant to forensic science is being done in your group/university and what are the opportunities for the future? Current work in the area of forensic science lies in four principle areas. 1. Drug identification, chemical impurity and in vitro toxicity profiling of amphetamine type stimulants and legal highs; 2. Development of analytical methods for the recovery and identification of drugs and metabolites from stable substrates (hair); 3. Development of methods for the recovery and analysis of ignitable flammable liquids from fire debris and fire scene surfaces; 4. Development of methods for the confirmation or otherwise of provenance of historical artefacts. Opportunities for the future include broadening the range of materials being studies through collaboration with forensic science providers both within the U.K. and overseas. 2. What previous and current research partnerships do you have with forensic science providers, police forces, the National Policing Improvement Agency, etc.? One member of the research group led a European consortium developing a method for the chemical impurity profiling of amphetamines which involved seven forensic science providers, including the Forensic Science Service (U.K.), National Bureau of Investigation (Finland), The Swedish National Forensic Science Laboratory (SKL), and the Dutch National Forensic Science Laboratory in Rijswijk, in addition to University provision in Aarhus, Denmark, Lausanne, Switzerland and Lisbon, Portugal. Collaboration with the Fire Prevention Agency (FPA) is currently underway and as part of our M.Sc. programme in Fire Investigation we have engaged with a number of forensic services and fire authorities in this area. 3. Can you give good examples in the forensic science field of translation of research into practice, and also any examples where this has been difficult or problematic ? The method developed by the consortium in (2) is now used as a an amphetamine profiling method in Europe, Australia and the United States. Using this method it is possible to exchange data around profiling of amphetamines to secure more meaningful investigations and successful drug law enforcement. Research in the forensic science area is often difficult because :- 1. The agency status of the FSS and the competitive business nature of forensic science has reduced, almost to zero, the opportunity for the major forensic science providers to engage with long term and / or speculative forensic science research either internally or with other organisations such as universities. Any research that has been undertaken recently has been driven solely by the business need of the organisation concerned. 2. There is currently no unit of assessment for forensic science within the the Research Excellence Framework. This makes assessment and review of the forensic science research provision difficult because the work is often compared to traditional physical and biological sciences. Such direct comparisons are not always valid. 4. What do you see as the opportunities for, and the barriers to, the funding of research relevant to forensic science ? Some of the research councils, for example the EPSRC, have funding streams that support forensic science. However, the vast majority of the projects that one member of the group reviewed were very peripheral to forensic science, poorly written and would have little impact, reach and significance in the proper forensic science context. What is required is a clearer set of guidelines for such funding streams. Funds are also available through organisations such as the Leverhulme Trust, the Wellcome Foundation etc., and the European Union funding initiatives. The principle barrier in the U.K. context is the lack of willingness of the forensic science providers to engage with Universities in meaningful research. The reasons that they state are that research does not feature within their business portfolio. Such barriers do not exist on mainland Europe, hence the success of projects such as those described in (2) above. 5. What are the important international networks and how useful are they ? Do you have any specific international collaborations you would wish to draw to our attention ? The most significant networks from a research point of view are :- The European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) The Americal Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) The International Association of Forensic Toxicologists (TIAFT) The Society of Forensic Toxicologists (SOFT). These are extremely useful in establishing research collaborations, networking and dissemination of research results through their various international conferences and in the case of the AAFS the Journal of Forensic Sciences. 6. Are there any other issues relevant to our terms of reference that you would wish to comment on? None at present. ASTON UNIVERSITY Questions for researchers 1. What work relevant to forensic science is being done in your group/university and what are the opportunities for the future? The Centre for Forensic Linguistics (CFL) was set up at Aston University in May of 2008. It was the first Centre in the world to deliberately combine research, doctoral supervision and postgraduate teaching with consultancy and professional training. Since the establishment of the Aston Centre other Centres have been developed at the University Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona and more recently at Hofstra University in New York State. Outside the University sector, the German Federal Police (the BKA) have a dedicated forensic linguistic unit and the FBI have a Written Threat Analysis unit both of which deal with similar issues. The provision of forensic linguistic analysis within the UK depends upon the University sector and principally on CFL. Forensic linguistics

Load more