The need for reporting standards in forensic science

When scientists are asked to assist a court in the evaluation of the results of forensic examinations, a fundamental question arises: what are the generic principles underlying sound inference to which scientists ought to adhere? This question is the object of on-going discussions and diverging opinions in the forensic science community. In this commentary, we discuss this topic from three perspectives. The first pertains to the need for scientists to agree on the generic precepts which evaluative reasoning ought to conform to, and the requirement that these should be stated clearly. Second, we shall argue that – as conveyed by the label ‘generic’ – these inferential requirements are independent of the forensic area of practice. Third, we maintain that these precepts ought – if encoded – to take the form of a standard, not a mere guideline.