Sample Evidence: What’s Wrong with ASTM E2548-11 Standard Guide for Sampling Seized Drugs?

Samuel Johnson once observed that “You don't have to eat the whole ox to know that it is tough.” Or maybe he didn't say this, 1 / bu...

NIST Distances Itself from the First OSAC-approved Forensic Science Standard

On January 11, 2016, a group created by the federal government to develop better standards for forensic science approved -- without changing...

Hot Paint: Another ASTM Standard (E2937-13) that Needs More Work

A second standard for comparing samples of paint under review for the OSAC Registry is ASTM E2937-13, on "Infrared Spectroscopy in For...

Is OSAC Painting Itself Out of the Picture? Time to Comment on ASTM E1640-14

The Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) started on the wrong foot with the first standard it chose to place on its blue-ribbo...

Approximating Individualization: The ASTM's Standard Terminology for Digital Evidence

Forensic scientists portraying existing standards for evidence testing and evaluation have been known to praise the “rigorous standard devel...

Broken Glass: What Do the Data Show?

In Broken Glass, Mangled Statistics , I noted "a plethora of statistical issues" in ASTM E2926-13, a Standard Test Method for Fore...

Broken Glass, Mangled Statistics

The motto of ASTM International is “Helping Our World Work Better.” This internationally recognized standards development organization cont...

The First OSAC-approved Standard for Forensic Science

"All results for every forensic science method should indicate the uncertainty in the measurements that are made, and studies must be c...