Open practices in our science and our courtrooms
- PMID: 34740452
- PMCID: PMC9191822
- DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2021.09.010
Open practices in our science and our courtrooms
Abstract
Advocates of transparency in science often point to the benefits of open practices for the scientific process. Here, we focus on a possibly underappreciated effect of standards for transparency: their influence on non-scientific decisions. As a case study, we consider the current state of probabilistic genotyping software in forensics.
Keywords: forensic genetics; open practices; open science.
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of interests Both authors have served as informal, pro bono consultants with the Legal Aid Society. JNM wrote a pro bono amicus brief in the case of New Jersey v. Cory Pickett and was a paid expert witness working with the US Office of the Federal Public Defender in the case of USA v. Lafon Ellis.
References
-
- Saks MJ and Faigman DL (2005). Expert evidence after Daubert. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1, 105–130
-
- Coble MD and Bright JA (2019). Probabilistic genotyping software: an overview. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 38, 219–224 - PubMed
-
- Matthews J, et al. (2020). When Trusted Black Boxes Don't Agree: Incentivizing Iterative Improvement and Accountability in Critical Software Systems In Proceedings of the 2020 AAAI/ACM Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics and Society, 102–108
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials