CHAPTER SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH SUPPORTING THE FOUNDATIONS OF FRICTION RIDGE EXAMINATIONS Glenn Langenburg CONTENTS 3 14.1 Introduction 27 14.5 Conclusions 3 14.2 The Nature of Scientific 27 14.6 Reviewers Inquiry 7 14.3 Scientific Research Related to 27 14.7 References Friction Ridge Examination 26 14.4 Future Directions for Research Related to Friction Ridge Examination 14–1 Scientific Research Supporting the Foundations of Friction Ridge Examinations C H A P T E R 1 4 CHAPTER 14 14.1 Introduction When some people think of research, what comes to mind are images of individuals in white lab coats, looking up intermittently to take data measurements and jot down SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH notes. This is a very limited and narrow view of research. Investigative reporters, attorneys, police detectives, engi- neers, authors, actors, and, of course, scientists, all per- SUPPORTING THE form research. The scientist, however, performs scientific research. Simply defined, research is an inquiry into any FOUNDATIONS OF FRICTION subject or phenomenon. Scientific research, then, can be defined as a scientific inquiry into a subject or RIDGE EXAMINATIONS phenomenon. What makes an inquiry “scientific”? What is science? What Glenn Langenburg is scientific method? What are the rules for a scientific in- quiry? The answers to these questions are not simple, and are the subject of an entire realm of philosophy of science. This chapter will review some of these topics, relating the issue to friction ridge skin science. The reader, however, is encouraged to read more regarding the philosophy of science to better understand the complexity of science and scientific inquiry. 14.2 The Nature of Scientific Inquiry 14.2.1 Science and Falsifiability The word science is derived from the Latin scientia (mean- ing knowledge), which is itself derived from the Latin verb scire (to know). Science can be defined as a body of knowledge obtained by systematic observation or experi- mentation. This definition is very broad, and, under such a permissive definition, many fields of study may be defined as science. Scientific creationism, theological science, Freudian psychoanalysis, and homeopathic medicine could arguably be classified as sciences. Sir Karl Popper (1902–1994) recognized the difficulty of defining science. Popper, perhaps one of the most respect- ed and widely known philosophers of science, separated science from nonscience with one simple principle: 14–3 CHAPTER 14 Scientific Research Supporting the Foundations of Friction Ridge Examinations falsifiability. Separation, or demarcation, could be done fact, some philosophers of science (Van Fraassen, 1989, if a theory or law could possibly be falsified or proven pp 180–181) believe that no laws exist at all. However, the wrong (Popper, 1959, 1972). A theory or law would fail this majority of modern philosophers of science believe that litmus test if there was no test or experiment that could laws exist and there are two popular competing definitions: be performed to prove the theory or law incorrect. Popper systems and universals (Thornton, 2005). believed that a theory or law can never be proven conclu- sively, no matter the extent of testing, data, or experimen- The systems definition of a law defines a law within a tation. However, testing that provides results which contra- deductive system. Axioms are stated that allow deductive dict a theory or law can conclusively refute the theory or conclusions. The strength of the law is within the truth of law, or in some instances, give cause to alter the theory or the generalized statement and its simplicity. As an example, law. Thus, a scientific law or theory is conclusively falsifi- if “all human friction ridge skin is unique”, and I am a human, able although it is not conclusively verifiable (Carroll, 2003). then one can deduce from the law (if true) that my friction ridge skin is unique. Instances of nonunique friction ridge Although the Popperian view of science is a widely held skin would obviously show the law to be false. view amongst scientists, it is important to note that the U.S. Supreme Court has also taken this view of science The universals definition of a law defines the law as a rela- tionship or “contingent necessitation” between universals (Daubert, 1993, p 593). Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority, cited Popper, specifically noting that a scien- (universals being just about anything). The wording of such tific explanation or theory must be capable of empirical a law would be similar to: testing. The issue of falsification was also raised during • Humans exist. the Daubert hearing for the admissibility of latent print • Unique friction ridge skin exists. evidence during U.S. v Mitchell (July 13, 1999). (For an explanation of Daubert hearings, see Chapter 13.) • The law is the relationship of these two entities: Humans possess unique friction ridge skin. 14.2.2 Scientific Laws and Theories In either case, laws can be described by the following There is a grand misconception, even within the scientific features (Hempel and Oppenheim, 1948; Zynda, 1994): community, that scientists first make observations; then • Laws are universal. they postulate a hypothesis; after rigorous testing, the hypothesis is accepted, thus becoming a theory; then the • Laws have unlimited scope. theory, after enjoying many years of success, without any • Laws contain no designation of individual, particular instances of being refuted, is accepted as a scientific law. objects. This hierarchical structure is a myth (McComas, 1996). • Laws contain only “purely qualitative” predicates. Schoolhouse Rock (Frishberg and Yohe, 1975) described such a hierarchy for bills on their journey to becoming laws. Theories, on the other hand, are explanations for laws. For Such is not the case in science. example, Sir Isaac Newton discovered the “Law of Gravity”. This law is universal, unlimited, not just applicable to a Scientific laws and theories, though related, represent dif- unique object, and is descriptive and predictive. However, ferent knowledge within science. McComas stated, “Laws this law does not explain how and why gravity works. Sci- are generalizations, principles or patterns in nature and entists of Newton’s era proposed waves of gravity emitted theories are the explanations of those generalizations”. from objects, attracting each other, operating similarly to magnetism. The attractive forces of gravity comprised the Scientific laws describe general principles, patterns, and Theory of Gravity. Later, Albert Einstein found instances phenomena in the universe. Scientific theories explain why where the theory did not hold up (e.g., light bending these general principles, patterns, and phenomena occur. toward massive objects in space). According to the accept- The verbs associated with laws and theories speak to the ed theory of the time, Einstein’s observations were not pos- nature of these concepts: scientific laws are discovered; sible. Einstein proposed a new and revolutionary theory of scientific theories are invented (McComas, 1996). gravity to explain this phenomenon. Einstein’s new theory Exactly what defines a law and exactly what defines a was called the “General Theory of Relativity” and described theory is contested within the philosophy of science. In curvatures in the space–time continuum. These curvatures 14–4 Scientific Research Supporting the Foundations of Friction Ridge Examinations C H A P T E R 1 4 were due to massive objects exerting their force of gravity and Vaidya, 1968). The number of visible incipi- on the space–time continuum, very similar to bowling balls ent ridges increases as we age (Stücker et al., placed on an outstretched blanket. Einstein’s proposed 2001). Hairline creases and wrinkles proliferate theory was not initially accepted, but after years of tests as we age. All these factors describe a dynamic and experiments, his theory gained acceptance. and changing friction ridge skin. Yet the arrange- ment of the minutiae and the ridge sequences is This is the true nature of science. Laws are discovered. very robust and reproducible. There is evidence to Theories are invented to explain them. The laws and support that third-level details (e.g., ridge shapes theories are tested by experiments, observations, and hy- and pore locations) are persistent; this is explored pothesis testing. Hypotheses are woven together into the later in the chapter (see section 14.3.2.2). theories as the theories are modified. Theories are never proven, only continually tested and updated. Theories can The next question of interest is, Are these scientific laws? be accepted for hundreds of years, but with the advent of According to Popper, to satisfy the criteria for scientific newer technology, theories are subjected to new tests and laws, these laws must be falsifiable. Clearly, both laws are rigors, and eventually outdated or incomplete theories give easily falsifiable. One must simply find instances where way, absorbed into new, mature theories. The science of different individuals have indistinguishable friction ridge friction ridge skin has experienced exactly such trials. skin or instances where the arrangement of the ridges in friction ridge skin is observed to naturally change over 14.2.3 Laws and Theories in Friction time (excluding injury or trauma, of course). However, in Ridge Examination the history of this discipline, no such instances have been demonstrated. If we accept the definition that a scientific law is a general- ized description of patterns and phenomena in nature and Suppose one individual, in the entire world, actually did a scientific theory is the explanation for that law, then what have a fingerprint that matched someone else’s fingerprint. theories and laws exist within the discipline of friction ridge Obviously, the forensic community would be shocked, and science? the verity of the law would be questioned. But in a purely Popperian view (Thornton, 2005): The two most basic laws are: No observation is free from the possibility of 1) Human friction ridge skin is unique.