Forensic science services, at the heart of many trials, are under the microscope like never before. Last month, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee published a report concerned about lack of labs’ independence from police. On March 4, 2026, in Melbourne this year, an expert panel discussion will explore the apparent wrongful conviction of Stephen ‘Shorty’ Jamieson for rape and murder, driven off course by old school verballing, made possible by ignorance of linguistic forensic science. In a December 2025 Science Direct article, Aaron Olson (Truth, power, and the crisis of forensic independence) paints a picture of forensic independence in crisis. See extracts below.
The common central concern is summed up in Olson’s first key point: forensic labs operating under police hierarchies face pressure to support the prosecution case. That is a loud red alarm; will any Attorney-General take notice and act on recommendations to separate forensic labs from the auspices of law enforcement? This is a prime reform demanded to improve our legal system. (As we have argued for years; it is also listed as one of the key reforms needed in Andrew L. Urban’s 2018 book, Murder by the Prosecution (Wilkinson), Chapter 12: “emphasis on serving the court not the police or prosecution”.
Truth, power, and the crisis of forensic independence – Abstract
Forensic laboratories operating within law enforcement hierarchies face an inherent structural conflict between scientific independence and institutional loyalty. When scientists challenge prosecutorial narratives or expose systemic problems, they frequently experience professional retaliation, forced resignations, or career marginalization. This editorial examines documented cases of such retaliation and argues that these patterns reflect deeper cultural mechanisms that protect institutional authority by expelling dissenters who threaten the myth of forensic objectivity. Drawing on historical parallels to religious and state orthodoxy and René Girard’s theory of scapegoating, the analysis demonstrates that these conflicts are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a fundamental governance failure. Genuine scientific independence, mandatory full disclosure, external peer review, and whistleblower protections are essential to restore public trust and ensure that forensic science is guided by truth rather than institutional interests.
***
Forensic science faces an institutional crisis: laboratories claim scientific independence while operating under the administrative and financial control of law enforcement hierarchies. This tension between truth and power is ancient, appearing whenever those who generate knowledge must answer to those who wield authority. This editorial explores the influence of institutional authority on the determination of knowledge within both laboratory and courtroom contexts. It encourages forensic scientists to reflect not only on the methods used in evidence analysis, but also on the specific truths sanctioned by those in positions of power.
The credibility of forensic science depends on the public’s trust that laboratories are objective, transparent, and independent of the institutions whose cases they serve. Yet, when laboratories operate under the administrative or financial control of law enforcement agencies, scientists face subtle but powerful pressures to conform to prosecutorial expectations. Those who reinforce official narratives are rewarded with deference and institutional protection, while those who question or contradict them often face heightened scrutiny, marginalization, or retaliation
Historically, religion provided a unifying moral framework for society. In the modern world, that role has been largely assumed by the state. Like the Church in earlier eras, it defines acceptable belief, provides for those in need, and enforces orthodoxy. In ancient texts, those who dared to defy the divine order were condemned. The Biblical story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego recounts how three men who refused to bow before King Nebuchadnezzar’s golden idol were cast into a furnace for their disobedience. Their ordeal symbolized the cost of independence in the face of absolute power. Today, the mechanisms of punishment are more subtle. The flames are reputational and professional, but the purpose is the same: to preserve the legitimacy of the governing order by consuming the dissenter.
The scientist who questions the state’s conclusions stands in the same lineage as those ancient resisters. Galileo Galilei, whose telescopic observations contradicted Church doctrine, was condemned not because his science was wrong but because it threatened the authority of the institution that claimed a monopoly on truth. His forced recantation was an act of political preservation, not intellectual correction. In a similar fashion, modern forensic scientists who challenge institutional orthodoxy risk professional exile, even when their claims are empirically sound. The machinery of authority has simply changed its symbols. Where the Church once guarded the heavens, the state now guards the laboratory.
The 2009 National Academy of Sciences report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, recognized the structural problem with remarkable clarity. It warned that forensic laboratories cannot claim objectivity while operating under the administrative control of law enforcement. The report called for independence, transparency, and rigorous external oversight. Yet more than a decade and a half later, the institutional framework remains largely unchanged. The lessons have not been absorbed. Forensic science too often serves to legitimize authority rather than to question it. Without independent oversight and consistent feedback, forensic systems tend to repeat and reinforce their own biases rather than correct them.