The lights are off and the doors shut at the Forensic Science Service’s laboratory in London. Its closure at the end of March was the final step after closures of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) laboratories at Birmingham, Chepstow, Chorley, Huntingdon and Wetherby ended their support of criminal investigations in England and Wales.

These services are now to be provided by commercial companies. What will this mean for expertise and the quality and future of research? And how will that affect our ability to catch criminals?

Originally, the FSS comprised six operational laboratories together with the FSS Central Research Establishment (CRE) at Aldermaston, the only research institution in the world that undertook study into all aspects of forensic science. The CRE closed in 1995. The FSS was used by many countries as a model for setting up their own forensic science provision. The FSS was also the first UK forensic provider to gain International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) accreditation, with its scientists also taking a leading role in the development of national and European quality initiatives.

In 1995 the Home Office’s Forensic Science Service had become an executive agency. In December 2005 it changed from being a trading fund to become the Forensic Science Service Ltd, a government-owned company expected to be self-financing. Politically seen as a way to cut the burden of costs, staff were concerned about the future of high-quality scientific support for detecting crime.

Scientific research and complex laboratory analysis is costly, but what is the true cost of closing our leading provider of forensic science? Some 1,600 jobs were reportedly lost; but in true forensic terms, that equates to thousands of years of specialist experience.

Forensic science is not simply a process where a few automated analytical instruments are set up to process samples at the end of a conveyor belt. Each exhibit is particular to a set of circumstances at a specific point in time. Exhibits are often far from perfect and limited in size or volume. Analytical laboratory procedures form only a small part of each case and there is no room for error; if a mistake is made, repeat analysis can rarely be undertaken.

Each forensic case has three stages: the initial review, when the scientist decides on tests to be undertaken, the laboratory examination/analysis and, finally, interpretation of results. Many providers of analytical laboratory services should be able to set up instrumentation and procedures to provide routine analyses, however a significant proportion of forensic casework is not routine and requires specialist skills. Some commercial providers may lack the experience and expertise for a competent initial case review and the final crucial interpretation of results. The Home Office has created a Regulator of Forensic Sciences to meet such concerns: now all forensic providers must be accredited against ISO standards. Mandatory professional practice guidelines are being produced and a framework for national quality standards implemented. But securing agreement between companies with individual commercial needs may take time.

Unfortunately such accreditation does not adequately ensure the quality of interpretation of results or presentation of that evidence in court. This is best achieved by independent peer review, a key aim of the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners before it was disbanded, also on cost grounds. And although rare, allegations of miscarriages of justice arising from scientific examination and/or interpretation have been directed at the FSS. If this can occur in a highly experienced and quality-driven body, what is the potential for miscarriages of justice with less experienced providers?

Finally, research: will commercial organisations fund specialist research without financial return? It is expensive, seen by many in academia as non-academic, “too near the customer" and of low priority. Until forensic research is properly recognised and funding is made available the future looks bleak.

Professor David Osselton was formerly Head of Toxicology for the Forensic Science Service and is Head of Forensic Sciences at Bournemouth University. He chairs the United Kingdom and Ireland Association of Forensic Toxicologists

"

(Via. The Times)

The common challenge amongst businesses of any size is typically MOTIVATION. How to motivate people and keep them motivated when you need their input the most. By understanding your people better, you will know how to work with them in a way in which they NEED to be worked with—not a way in which you have ALWAYS worked with them in the past. This is a paradigm shift for many lab professionals. Understanding motivation is about adapting to the needs of your people.

Click here to register…..

(Via .)

"From July this year, we will be mandating the deposit of publication outputs arising from NHMRC funded research into an institutional repository within 12 months of publication."

(Via .)

(Via .)

"At a time when Syd. U enrolments are projected to increase some 30%, we are presented with the news that 340 staff - "have to go"…..??"

"Faced with shrinking budgets, laboratory managers are constantly seeking more effective ways to service and maintain their equipment, which they must now keep operational over lengthening life spans."

Professor Langridge, who is CEO of the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics (ACPFG) at the Waite Campus, won the award in recognition of his contribution to improving agricultural products in South Australia over a 30-year career.

Peter Langridge first joined the University of Adelaide as a lecturer in agricultural biochemistry in 1984. He became Professor in Plant Science at the University of Adelaide in 1998, and CEO of the ACPFG, which he helped to establish, in 2003.

Professor Langridge pioneered the use of molecular markers in cereal breeding. His research interests are in the area of deploying genetic technologies and new strategies to improve the breeding of cereal crops. He has recently chaired a Federal Government committee examining issues of food security.

"I am very honoured to be recognised in this manner; science is a fabulous career. We are now making a significant contribution to cereal science internationally and this has been made possible by the great support we have had from our funders. It was also fabulous to see the younger scientists recognised last night, they were a very impressive group,” Professor Langridge said.

According to economists Benjamin Jones and Bruce Weinberg, young scientists making groundbreaking contributions to their fields are becoming an endangered breed. In a study published yesterday (November 7) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they reported that the chances a Nobel Prize winner at the turn of the 21^st century produced their winning work by the age 30 or even 40 is close to zero.

Their analysis of 525 Nobel Prize winners (182 in physics, 153 in chemistry, and 190 in medicine) between 1900 and 2008, revealed that while the mean age at which they did their Nobel-prize winning work was around 37 for the three fields in the early 20^thcentury, they are now around 50, 46, and 45 for Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine, respectively

(Via .The Scientist)