Forensic Science Laboratories in the United States: A Survey /)p/~r~rtnzentc?f'Forrnsic LSciences, The George Ct'nshi~zg~otz[Jr~iuersity, Pl'ushirtg/on, D.C., 20052, C.S.A. T h e rcszllls (4cr .ruraq ~ ~ ' J ; I Y si:ielzce ~ I ~ . Tirzhoratorie.~ ~c it2 t l [~j l~~ i f Stalts ~ d indicrrte fhat lhtst laboraiuries ure width tlivergrnt in several oJ the pururnrters eualuuted. It ufipcars that, although the rnajori~pof them attempt to function as iifull-sarvice" laboratories, thc level c?J'j)erjbrrnon,-e i.r ?lo/ zttzifnrm due to differences irr the nvailahilip ffjiinnncial n t ~ d Fcrsonnel resourcts cis me11 us in he educaliurlul and fruitling requirernenls of the luboratut;)~ scienfisfs. The prevnlenre of the "generalist" philosophy o f the foreitsic sciences coupled with a lrirtzraiiy total comntitnaent to ca.reurork nnalyse.r may explain tfze lack of a nzajor research effort in these laboratorits. Introduction Forensic science laboratories in the United States-havejundergone significant growth and dcvelopment since their establishment in the early part of this ceri1ur.y. Tlie nurnber of' these laboratories has ir~c~easecl clrarrlatically tlur*ing recent years as evidenced by a comparison of a 1967 survey report, which listed thc cxistcncc of 10.5 forrnsic science 1nhoratn1-ics (Joseph, l?)tjH), with morr recerit data or tlie Arrierican Crime Labcrr.ator.)i Dii.ector~s(1975) and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (1975-77) indicating, respectively, the existence of 150 or 250 such laboratories. This numerical growth has been parallelecl Iy an equally drarriatic growth in scientific kriowledge and capabilities during this period, which has increased the potential value of the forensic science laboratory in the criminal justice system, and has placed on both t h e ihrensir: sc:irnc:e lahoratory ant1 the forensic scientist the resporisibili~y of maintaining scientific expertise which is commensurate with available scientific knowledge. 'I'hc dcvclopmcnt of forensic sciencc laboratorics during this period of rapid growth has also been influenced by important nun-scientific factors including the philosophy of the laboratory as to its role and function and tlie legal and/or financial ~.cstraintsirnpc-)scd upon ihc function of thc laborator!.. Because of the diverse nature of forensic science laboratories it was felt that a review of laboratory operation might be of value to those c.onccrncc1 with the present status and fiuturr rlir*rctiox~of' ~lieselabora~crries.It was no1 the intcnt of this survey to cornpare lhe opet,aliorl of forerisic scierice laborsato~ieswith anv modrl of such laboratories since such nlodels may not adequately rcprcscnt their preseni operation. Furthrrmore? mnrlcls of this nature often tend t o be mere simplifications of extremely complex organizations ~ ~ h i coften h assume a unifol-mity of gnals anti functions ainoilg diverse i l ~ e i n h e ~ofs a profession, i.c., rio siriglc rriodel can possitdy encompass all of the myriacl types of forerisic science laboratorics which exist. Rather, this survey was conducted for the piur~~usesof obtaining data whir.h pertain to the prrsent scientific capabilitie?, financial arid personnel pc-~licies,scientific philosnphies anrl fi~turemanpower needs of these laboratories in the United States since n knowledge of how forensic sciencc laboratorics function is at least as important as a model of how they should funclio~i. Of the types of analyses discussed iri this arlicle, char,acterislically, only tnxic.ologica1 analysts arr cnnrll~cterlin a Mrrlical Examiner's Lnboi*atnr)-. All

of the rcrnaining arc within thc purvicw of thc forcnsic scicncc laboratory. In rriany such labor*ator,ies (lie rriajority ol' these ar~alysrsare conducted by the forensic chemist. However, there is little uniformity in the duties of a forensic chemist among the various Iaboratorics, c.g., in onc laboratory hc may pcrform analyses of drug dosage forms exclusively, whereas in another laboratory lie, additionally, may contiuct analyscs of othcr forms of tracc cvidcnce including fihres, arson accelerants and explosives. Generally, it is the fbrensic sernlogist whose function it is to cl~aracterizebody fluids by means of both biocheir~ical and immunological methods.

Method A questionnaire eliciting information pertaining to the nature and scope of the laboratory, budgetary c.onsiderntion, personnel policics and analytical capabilities was prepared and submitted to forensic: sc:ienc:e 1at)oralories a1 all governnlental levels in the United States. T h e response from federal laboratories was not sufficient to warrant inclusion of those data in this report. Apart from the 19 central or regional federal laboratories contacted, the questionnaire was sent to 141 local (city), county and statc laboratories. Only two laboratories wit11 Mcdical Exanlincr or ( h - o n c r alliliations arc: inclurlcrl in thc rcs~lltsof this survey. 'I'tie laboratnries were n c ) ~xec-luir~drn irlentiry themsel\.es. Results and Discussion ' l ' h ~questionnaire was returned ithe her l>arti;llly nr entirely completed) by 44 of the 141 laboratories contacted. This represents a 3 1 . 2 O / , , response. Of the rcsponrling laboratories 24 idcntifird themselves as state laboratnries (of which 3 were designated as regional Iabur.atur.iesj, 13 as county laboratories and 7 as local Iaboratorics. Although the total number nf responding laboratories may appcar to be small, the data indicate that the total population served by these laboratories is in excess of 87 million persons. A review of the responses indicated that a very small percentage of this population is served by more than one of the labnratories rcsponcling in this survey. The data in Table 1 indicate that the average population served by the

NATIJRE OF LABORATORlES ( n = dkO) .4ucto~e Populatio~~ Scrrcd per Laboraro~~y 2.18 (rnillio~is) Length of Oprration 20.5

.\fcdian 1.19

18.0

Range 0.3-13 1-53

(ytxrs)

laboratories participating in this survey is 2.18 1nillio11.The data reveal, as might be expected, that the size of the population served by the laboratory is independent of the govcrnmcntal jurisdiction of thc laboratory, e.g., thrce of tile local labcrratorirs rrport serving a larger. popula~iotitlian six 01' tlie county and five of the state laboratories. There is n wicle variation in the numbcr of years of laboratory opcration ranging frorr~one Jirar to 53 years arrlurig all of' tlir rrsporiclirig 1ab1:)ratories.I t is of interest to note thataof the state labor'atories six, or 30°,b, have bee11 in operation for fcwrcr than fivc ycars, whcrcas all of thc county and local laboratories have I ~ e nin operation fix irlore tliarl five years. Rltliough i t rnight bc te~riplirlg10 ascribe lhis apparent spate of new state laboratories to the availability of federal funds, the data reveal that in nnly nnc of thcsr six ncw statc

laboratories is more than 2!j0/,of thc 1 !-I75 buclgct dcrivccl from feclcral sources. Obviously, the budget is one parame~er* of 1abor.alory operalion which rrlay exert a profound influcncc on thc pcrformancc of the laboratory. Data obtaincd from 34 laboratorics pertaining to budgetary malters arc presented in Table 2. TABLE 2 BUDGET (n

- 134)4

z.erti,yc

&fefintr

RQrtgr

1975 Budgct (r~lillionsof dollars) Expmditurr. pcr capita - (dollars j Expcr~(lilurrprr Prtfr\siunal Employer. (thousancls of dollats) Fcderal Contribution to Budgct*

30.5

28.1

15.7

0

1 1-85 0-80

(:C)

These data reflect the vast differences which exist among the laboratories in virtually all of thc budgct categories presented. Expenditures per capita rangcri from a low o f $0.03 to a Iiigh of $1.65 with an average of $0.34 and a rr~edian of $0.25. Ol'lhese 34 laboratories, eleven or 32.3O/; have a per capita expenditure equal to or greater than the average of $0.34. Aclditionally, fo~lrlahoratories (1 I .tlq/O)have a per capita expe~zditureofrrlvre than $0.50. A study by Parkrr (1967) reported that the per capita expenditure by 72 state and city forensic science laboratories ranged from $0.005 to SO.25 with a n avcragc of approximately $0.06. Although our data reveal that the range of and average per capita expenditures both havc incrcascd, it is surprising to find (in light of the inflationary pressures sincc 1963) that ol' the labol.a(or%ies participating in our survey two (5.90/,,) had per capita expenditures for 1975 below the 1963 average and 17 (500/,,,)had pcr capita cxpcnditures for 1975 bclow the upper limit of the 1963 rangc. 'I'he expenditures per e~rlpluyeealso de~nonstratea wide range fro111 $11,000 to $85,000 per employee with an average of S30,000 and a median of $28,100. These data rcprcscnt an inel-casc over thc values reported in il 1971 study in which the expenditure per ernployee in 23 laboratories ranged fiorri $9,100 to $33,000 with an average of $15,500 (Krendel et al., 1971j. Of special interest are the data in 'l'ahlr 2 rclating r n fcrleral support of laboratories. The average and median federal budgetary support are 15.7Y{, and 0% respectively with a range of 0q/, to SOYA. Obviously, the range and median of these data indicate that the majority of lal~oratoricsrnay hcr separated into two groups, i.e., those receiving little or no lkcleral support and those receiving significant federal support. I n the former group rhcrc wcrc 23 laboratories (5994 of thc 39 laboratories providing infbrnlation on this topic) which rcccived 5'3, or less of their 1975 hudget from federal sources; whereas, in the latter group there were 11 laboratories (28.2% of thcsc 39 laboratories) which receivccl 25:k or more of their budget Srorn federal sources. These d a ~ aIsv a reveal that state laboratories appear to be the rrlrijor recipients of fcdcral support. Of the 19 state laboratories providing data on this topic, eight ( 4 2 . l ' k j received 25'5; or more of their 1975 hudget from federal funds whereas clnly three (23.191) of the 13 county laboratories and rtolle of the seven local laboratories were supported to this extent. Of' the 11 laboratories which reported federal support of at least 25"0, nine have been in existence for more than Iive years (seven of these nine have been in cxistcncc for more than 25 years.) Therefore, based on thcse data, it ~vouid 179

i l p p y r that f>deral support has been directecl mainly to\vai-rl upgrading existirlg Iaboratories ancl not establisIiing new laboratories. Although a policy of upgrading laboratory capabilities and effectiveness by means of federal support is not L~ndesirahIeper se, it is interesting to spcculatc wt~cthrrhravily subsidized laboratories have rrlade cost-assunlptiun pr.ovisio~isiri llle event tlrat fedcral funding ceases. In the event that such provisions have not heen made, the future of thrsc laboratorics is clucstionable. A surnrnary of data pe~tainirig io laboratory persorlriel is preseriteci iri Table 3. Thc nurnbcr of profcssional crnployees per laboratory ranges from a

Number per laboratory (n = 41) YUI~~C [JCT - I 1r1iI11or1 . ~~opuli~!iot~ (n = 40) .\vrr.agtx Agr

,~= 401,

11i'o.ogc 17.3

.\.Iediurl

lli.!i

$1. I

:3 I .!I

II

Y0

lici~~ge

2 79 2.2 4 i . 5 15-11)

111

~

Laboratory tenure (years) (n = 36) .\linimum yearly starting salar) * (n -- 351 Avr.lagt! yrarly stal.titig salary* (11 = 35)

*

3.8

5.0

3 12

11 .O

1 1 .O

8-1-4.1

12.1

12.0

8 -1 7

thousands ol dollars

low of 2 to a liigli of 79 with an avrragc of 1 7 . 3 and a merlian of 1 1 . However, perhaps a more reliable measure of the adequacy of laboratory manpower is the average numbcr of professional cmployccs per- million population. 'l'hcsc data indicate a wirlc rangc of frorn 2.3 t t : ~ 46.5 arriong the laboratories with an averagr or 10.3 and a median of 8.8. T h e local laboratories have a considerably greatcr avcragc of 1.5.8, which may bc due to the traditional presencc of Iargc idcntificarinn sections in rnany lclcal labc:)i*atoi.ies.Approxirrrately 54'5, of' all resporldir~glaboratories havc the capability for the analysis of latent firigerprints. Although only one of several rclcvant factors, rhc nurnbcr of professional ernployecs certainly may alkct in eitlier a clualilative or. quarilitalive rnannel. the laboratory function. I t might be argued that the number of professional employees employed in a laboratory is a rrflcction of that laboratory's capaI~ilitirs.However, data r)lstainrrl through this survey reveal that the number of professional employees in a laboratory often is not related to the laboratory's stated analytical capahilitics. 'l'hc avrragc: age of professional cmploycrs rlocs not vary greatly among lal~oratories. T h e data reveal that the practitioners of our prokssion in the United Statcs arc rclativcly young and gcncrally havc had a rclativc,ly short tcnurc in tlieir pi-eseril posilioris. Starting salaries for forensic scientists employed in responding laboratories are upcnerallv comnctitivc when comnarcd to other non-forensic nositions which require sirriilar rducatioli and experience. As woulcl be anticipated, the averagr yearly startiny salary is s l i ~ h t l ygreater than the minimum starting salary. T h r range of salaries in both categories is great; llo\vever, 74+3':/, of the lninimuin anrl 65.7'2, of the avcragr starting yrarly salarirs 'fall into a r a t l ~ r rnarrow range, i.e., $10-1 3,000. The data in Tablc 1 reflect the educational reauirements of the resoondingu lahoratorirs for employment in strvtral diKercnt arras. With the rxceptiori oS firearms exarnine1.s in both state and county labvr.atories, all posilions require thr l~accalnurrated e ~ r e ein thr majorit)- of the laboratories. However, f e w

Chemis~ry(n - 35) Firearms (n - 2 1 )

Toxicology (n = 21)

* The values prcsen~eclare tllr percentages of rhe responding laboratories which require the minimum educational requirements indicated for employment in the laboratory sections listed. EI = high school; B = B.S.; M M.S.

-

Iaboratorics rcquirc thc hlastcr's dcgl-cc for any positions. 'l'hus, thcrc is little difference arnong tlie laboi,atories iri trrrris of rriininiu~neducational rccluirrments. I t is hoped that the cducationnl requircrncnts for all forcnsic scicncc positions will be increasect as rapidly as is possible. T1iei.e arc f w , il'arly, other scicntific disciplines in which individuals with as much responsibility and supposed expertise as forensic scientists, are not required to attain a higher lcvcl of educational achicvemcnt. T h e prcscnt m i n i ~ - n ~educational ~m requirerrients do not appear 10 be conducive to irnprovirig the scientific exper~tiseof [orensic scientists. I t has been suggested (Fox, 1975) that in a t least one forensic scicncc, i.e., firrarms rxamination, the lack of scientific arlvancement may h r rrlated to a lack of educational achievement by the practitioners. This is a valid point which may bc cxtcndcd to othcr of thc forcnsic. scicnccs in which this country has liacl to rcly on the scientific advances tnacle abroad. 'I'hcrc is no rloubt thar increasing the present educatiorial rcquirerric~ils~ v o u l dbe in the best interests of thr profcssion. A recent report has implied {hat standarclizatil:~n of curricula anrl accreditation of institutions rnight be in the best interests of' f'orerisic science education (Peterson and DeForest, 1977). However, neither standardization nor accrcditation 01' educational programmes 01. clepartmcnts will cnsurr quality. T h r method by which quality education should be achieved iri the furensic sciences (or anv, discinline for that matter) is bv the iudicious selection of students who I have demonstrater1 that they will benefit fimn and contril)ute to such a programme and of faculty who are committed to excellence in teaching and research as a fi~ll-timecommitment and who additionally possess the credentials and expertise necessary to fulfil that commitment. T h e present preference for educational achievement of prospective errlployees is reflected by thc data in Table .5.Thcsc data substantiate the widely expressed view that experience is a n extrerriely irripurtant cl.itet.ion in the c v a l ~ ~ a t i oof n individuals for employment in a forensic laboratory, i.r., experience is often accepted in lieu of, or cvcn prcfcrrcd to, cducational achicvemcnt. For example, an individual with a B.S. degree in clir~r~istry or* biology and four years 01' experience is considered preferable to, or equivalent to, ari i~ldividualwith a Ph.D. in chemistry or biology and no experience, by 9.596 of the respondents. Although proper lal~oratory training is esse;ltial in tlie development of a forensic scientist, this author does not feel that the continued ernphasis on this single factor is in the best interests of the profcssion sincc thc theoretical knowlcdgc and rcscarch skills required of the fi~rerisicscierltist are diiIicult to obtain in a setting irl which the number of cases conlpleted often is the only measure of arhirvemrnt. Hnwever, the inclusion of a well-dircctcd intrrnship experi~ncr \ -

'TA0I.E 5 EDUCATIONAL PREFERESCE*

Equi~inl~ritLass pref~r-

Ptefernble

B.S. (ChemIBiol) with 2 years

experience is* ** I3.S. (Chetii/Biol) w i ~ h4 y(,ars experience is** * M.S. (ChemjBiol) with no cxpcricnce is* * M.S. (Forensic Sciences) with a 3 rrlor~~h internship is** B.S. (Forcnsic Scicnces) with no rxperience is* * M.S. (Forensic Sciences) with a 3 month internship is*** M.S. (Forensic Sciences) with no rx1~rrirr1c.ris * * *

" Values prrsrntrd ** n=

to

to

nhic thnrt

39

49

12

63 17

72 8

54

3'2

are percentages of

1 I . S . (Forensic Sciences) \\,it11 a 3 II~[-)IILI> it~~rrrhht>ip 32 !-r P11,13. (C:hcn~/Tliol)with nu experience 28 55 41,s. (For,cr~sicScirr~crs) W I L I ~11(-)rxpvrici~c(~ 15 I3 M.S. (Chen1;Biol) \cith n o experience 12 80 H.S.(Che~n/Bial)\%ilh2 years experience 10 'Ili 1'll.D. ((;11v111/Biol) will1 1 1 0 cxpcricncc 23 -1.5 Ph.D. (ChemjBiol) ~vithno esp(:rience responses agreeing ivith the indicated statelnent

40

in a n academic prograrnrrle will serve to s~reriglherithe pr.ograirime by providing the student with thc opportunity to develop essential laborator), skills. It is anticipated that t h c acccplarlce of forr~luicrcirllcr degrrr? will becoinr ri1ul.e prevalent as the relatively new acaderriic prograrnrries iri I'orerisic science become strengthened and as graduates of these programmes have an increased o p p o r t ~ ~ n i to t y prove tlierriselves iri furellsic laboratories. T h e data presented in Table 6 indicate that the majority of laboratories

3

Chcmistry (11 = 34) Firearrns ( n -- 26) Qucstiuncd Documents (n Serology (n 33) Toxiculogy (n = 23) Trace Evidence (n - 32)

-

2 1)

24 8 5 1 13

9

Trnitlitrg Period* (months) 6 12 21 36 50 26 0 0 11 4 31 8 O 29 52 14 18 61 I 0 26 57 -1 0 '25 57 9 11

* 'l'he values prcscntcd arc thc pcrccntages of thc responding laboratorics which requirr the minimum training pvriocls inclicatecl hefore a person (mploycd in these sections is allowed t n tystify. require a rrliriirr~u~r~ trair~ing period of six rrior~ths before ari individual is allowct.1 to testify in any of the disciplines listed. However, a surprisingly lnrgc nllmber of laboratories require a minimum training period of only three months prior to the presentation of testimony. It is difficult to comprehend how a person (especially one with a limited e d ~ ~ c a t i o nwith j only three months of' training could develop the expertise required to present valid testimony in ariy of the areas indicated. This variance in the minimum educational and training recl~~irements among laboratorics may I>r ill~~sratrcl by two cxrzmples. I n one laboratory, serologists witli a B.S. degrw rna) Ije pernlitted t.o testify after a minimum training period of three months. I n a second laboratory they must possess a n M.S. degree and havr: complerrd onr yrar of training before they arc allowccl to testily. Differences in educational and/or training requirements Inay bc i ~ r ~ p o r t a n t factors rnntrilx~tingto thc disparities of r ~ p ~ l i I i tRIICI y pel-fnrmance which

exist amnng lahorntorie?. Althnrigh it is not fclt that standardization of cducational and professional training requirements is requir~edor even desirable, it is sugqested that several laboratories would benefit by increasiny their present rcquircmcnts in thrsr areas. The five year* irlarlpuwer rieeds of 40 responding laboratories are preserited in Table 7. T h e total projected rcquircment of 386 additional forensic scientists

(11 =

Chcmisrs Firearms Examiners Qurstiorled D n c u m ~ n ~ Examirirrs s hTrologists Toxicologists T r a c r Evicirrlcr Exallhi~~rrs .j11 Chtcgories

40)

Total 14!1 50 34

.I ;r7

n,oe/Lob

represents an increase nf .54.40,; ovcr thc cxisting number of 710 scientists employed in these Iaboratc:)1ierj. Tliis is a yearly increase ol' approximaiely 9.1 0/;,. This firidirlg is cor~sistentwith those which have been reported elsewhere (Peterson and DcForcst, 1977). As might be expected, the greatest need is for cherrlists. This need, a total of 140 or a n avrrage of almost four p r r lal)oratory, constitutes slightly less than 40q{, of the entire iive year rrianpower. requi~.errients in all areas. While I airi iri corriplete agreernent with others that academic prograirlliies in forensic science may provide a pool from which qualified individuals may be chosen by the laboratories (McGee, 197.5; Karger et al., 1975) it is doubtful whethcr thc futurc pcrsonnel ncrds of the lahoratnrics can I>r mct hy the number of individuals presently graduating f~wrrisuch programmes (Krendel et al., 197 1). Unfortunately, this implics that a large pcrccntage nf new forensic scicntists will r.ontinuc to IIC prnduccrl, for a t lcast thc ncar- filt~lrc,solely by niearis of apprer~ticesl-liptr-aini~~g. This situatiori is riot unique to lhe Cnirrci States as it apparently exists in several other countries (Williams, 1976). Certainly thc typcs of analyses pel-formed by a lal~oratoryas well as 111r analytical rriethods at its disposal are important criteria for (he evaluation of laboratorv nerformance. T h e data in Table 8 are a com~ilationof the analvtical capahilities of the responding laboratories. Grnrrally, the majority of' tliese laboratories appear to have available most of the basic instrumentation required for forensic analyses. I t is not surprising that the analytical or instrurncntal methods which arc available to all rcsponrling 1al)oratorics are thin-lilycr chromatography, gas-liquicl chromatography, ultraviolet spectroscopy and infrared spectroscopy. Furthermore, a large pcrccntage possess relatively sophisticated ancl experisive inslr.umentation, e.g., mass spcctro~nctcrs. A1though it is difficult to assess performance solely on the availability of equipmcnt, onc tclling 1hct clncrgcs from thcse dara. O f 35 laboratories which indicatr that they had at least one person pe~~li)ir~iing scr~ologicalanalyses, four or 11-4,0/:, indicated that they did not possess electrophoresis equip~nent.This finding casts doubt on the capability of these laboratories to characterize. body fluids adequately. The data presented in Table 9 dc~rioristratethat with the exception of'voiceprints, each type of analysis is conducted by the majority of thc laboratories. I n fact, 59Y/b nf the rrspontling laboratories reported that they perrormcd at least rline or the types of analyses listed in Table 9. Tliis rvould indicate that t11r mc?jnrity of the laboratories h a t c cxpcrtisc in a n ~ l m h r rof diffcrrnt areas. i

l

TABLE 8 ANAT.YTTCA1. C.APARTl.ITIES* (n = 41) C:hrornatography colu~nr~ ga' liquid 1'"I"" I hin-1ayt.r 13iffcrcntial T h r r n ~ a:\nalvsis l Electrophoresis N~ULI.CIII ,4~:~ivalio11 A~lalyria Mass Spcctromctry Polarugraphy Spectroscopy emission infrared nuclcar rnaglietic resonarlct: ultraviolet visible x-ray t l i f i a c t i o ~ ~ s-ray fluorcsccncc

* T h e values prcsentccl

70.7 100.0 31.7 634 100.0 17.1 82.0 24.4 5 1.2 19.5

75.0 100.0 24.4 100.0 90.2 4t.i.3

,11.5

art: ~htxpcl,trtllagrs oi'tllr rrspor~rlirlglatluratorirs

which indicated that they rithcr posscssrd t h r rquipnirnt listcd or had access to it.

'TYPES OF ANALYSIS* ( n = 39) ~1~h0114

Casts and hloulds Documents Llrugs* * Explosives Fir~grrprints(T.;t!rrlts) Pirt.arrrls Gunshot Rrsiclucs SrroIogy Toxicology * * * 1race Evidencr Voice Prints

89.7

7.1 51.5 100.0 66.7 53.8 713.9

5.1

* Thr. va111rsprest,~~l(xi art the pcrceiltagrs of tht. rcspondillg lal~oratories which indicated that they had a t least onc pcrson engaged in the type of analysis lisled. '* Uosage Ibrlns. *** 'l'he large percentage of laboratories with toxicology capabilitics lrlay l)r d u r to thv 1)lond rthanol analyres condur:ted by these lahoraturivs.

However, a niore llioroi~glireview 01' the data reveals h a t the expertise of the laboratory frequently is based on the ability of the individual scientists to 1xrfort-n analyses of scvcral rlifTcrcnt types r)f physical cvidrncc. Is it rcasnnablc to expect that a forensic scierltist can develop or possess true scientific expertise in scvcral divcrsc arcas such as drug chcmistry, arsons and esplosives, serology, toxicology, and trace evidencc analysis, as well as bcing cng;~gcdin thc training i to liavirig supel.visory duties? This author thinks of rlew personnel, i ~ additiuri riot. Yet tht: data reveal (hat situations si~nilarto this are no1 rare. It rnust be concluded that ccrtain of our colleagucs arc in rcality not scientists but tcchnicians pcrfnrminq "cook-lmnk" analysrs. It is thc opinion of this author that thc scicntific explosion of the past three

decades has rendered untenable the generalist philosophy which has pervaded our profession during its formative years. This philosophy often has encouraged unqualified individuals to perform superficial analyses, the results of which are potentially more danlagiilg than if no analyses had been performerl. This survey reveals that, on the average, 6:; of a forensic scie~tist'stime is spent on rcscarch. Additionally, 31.77; of the laboratories participating in this survey indicated that they conduct no research at all. Altho~lghan ovrrwhelming case load is generally advancecl as a vaIid explanation for the dearth of laboratory research activity, it is nonetheless staggering to realize that such a small pcrccntagr of the cfforts nf our profrssion;il collragurs arr rlircctcrl toward what shuuId be a majc~rcorrl~riilrlie~il oS our pr,olession, i.e., expanding our knowlcdgc and increasing our scicntific capabilities.

Conclusions 1. There are widespread differences among forensic laboratories in virtually all of the parameters of laboratory management ancl operation addressed by this survey. 'l'his implies that laboratories either define their role and f~~nctions differently or arc unablc to mcct thc standards of a gcncrally uniform dcfinition due to external presuses, e.g., budgetary liriiitations. 2. Unless adequate provisions have been rriade, the groutli, devrloprnent a n d , perhaps, the existence of several laboratories will be jeopardized when federal subsidies are discontinued. 3. Generally, educatioilal recluirernents fix einpluyrrierit arr rrtinimal. 4. Prior forensic science experience continues to be accepted as one of the most important critcria for evalllating prosprctivc rmployers. 5. The trairiirig pt riud Ibr. new I'orerlsic scierilists ofierl iriay be insuflicient to develop the true expertise required. 6. 'I'hc: nccrl for forensic. scientists ovrr the next fivr )-ears will not I J ~met by graduates ol' exislirlg acaderrlic programmes in Ibrensic science. 7. Most laboratorics possess thc cquipmcnt which is basic to forensic analyses. n 'Lfull-service" or 8. Severd ol' thc laboratorics wliich attcmpt in f ~ ~ n c r i oas "wide-service" laborritories, acllieve this goal by su\>sc'ripti(:)nttn the "generalist'? phiIosophy of forensic scicncc. 9. T h e amount of I-eseareh bring c n n d ~ ~ c t r din forrnsic laboratories is negligible. Acknowledgments The autlior* wisher; to t h a n k ,Jarncs C:nlrman, Kicharrl French anrl Lo~lrdes San Miguel, former qraduate studenis in this Departnient 1;-~rtheir assistance in the preparation of the questionnaire and also Dr. Clharlcs E. O'Rear for his val~~al>le assistance and advice iri the prepara(ion ol'tl~nmanuscript. References Crimc Laboratory Digcst, issuc 75-7, September, 1975. Fox, W., 1975, in Forensic Science, pp. 8-9. American Chcmical Socicty, Washington, l3.C:. JOSEPH, A,, 1968, in Crime Laboratories--The Study Reports, pp. 1--74. Governmrnt Printirig OfLlice, i,Vasliingtvn, U.C:. KARGER,B. L., P A I Z K ~,J. K M., , GIESSEN, B. C. and DAVIS,G., 1975, in Foretiiic Science, pp. 28-42. American Chemical Socictv, Washington, D.C. KRF,NDF.I., E. S., 111-IVIMER, K. M. and FREIFELDER, I... K., 1971, U.S. Ilcpartrrlent oSJustice Grant N I 71-070-6. University City Science Center, Philadelphia. 1,nboratol-y Proficiency Testing Program, Suppleinentary ltcport, Samplcs 1--15, 1975-77. Law Erili~l.cet~~ent .4ssistance Atlministration, Washington

D.C,

McCJEE, W. W., 1975, in For~nsic Scienr~, pp. 10-21. American Chemical Socirty, Washington, D.C. PARKER,B., 1967, in Furen~ic Science: Scientific Investigation in Criminal Justice, pp. 305-317. AhfS Prcss, Inc., New York. PETERSON, J . L. a11d DEFOREST, P. R., 1977, ,7. For. Sci., 22, 17-33, WILLIAMS, R. L., 1976, J. Forerls. Ski.Suc., 16, 279-283.