Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:49:35.433Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Creating the Network and the Actors: The FBI's Role in the Standardization of Forensic DNA Profiling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2008

Jay D. Aronson
Jay D. Aronson
Affiliation:
Department of History, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Ave, 240 Baker Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15213USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This article explores the FBI's early efforts to develop and implement a standardized DNA profiling regime in a legal and scientific landscape shaped by strong defense challenges to the technique. Although the FBI claimed numerous times that its standardization efforts were purely ‘technical’, the FBI knew it had to create a social infrastructure that would serve to ensure the validity and reliability of the forensic DNA evidence. At the center of the system would be the FBI, serving as the obligatory, if reluctant, passage point for both technical and social exchanges. The FBI decided largely by fiat that forensic scientists based in public crime laboratories, but with little molecular biology and genetics training, bore the primary responsibility for setting standards, as well as carrying out, forensic DNA analysis. At the same time, the FBI actively excluded representatives from the private biotechnology companies that introduced the technique into the legal system, as well as the members of the defense community that were responsible for highlighting potential problems with the technique in court.

Keywords

Actor-Network TheoryDNA ProfilingFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)Forensic ScienceLawStandards and/or Standardization
Type
Articles
Information
BioSocieties , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 195 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © London School of Economics and Political Science 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, D.E. (1988). Validation of the procedure for DNA analysis: A summary. Crime Laboratory Digest, 15 (4), 85–87.Google Scholar
Adams, D.E., Presley, L.A., Budowle, B., Giusti, A.M., Baechtel, F.S. et al. . (1991). Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis by restriction length fragment polymorphisms of blood and other bodily fluid stains subjected to contamination and environmental insults. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36 (5), 1284–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alder, K. (1998). Making things the same: Representation, tolerance, and the end of the ancien regime in France. Social Studies of Science, 28 (4), 499–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, J.D. (2007). Genetic witness: Science, law, and controversy in the making of DNA profiling. New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers UP.Google Scholar
Bowker, G.C. (1994). Science on the run: Information management and industrial geophysics at Schlumberger, 1920–1940. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bowker, G.C., & Star, S.L. (1999). Sorting things out: Categorization and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Budowle, B., Deadman, H., MurchR., R., & Baechtel, F.S. (1988). An introduction to the methods of DNA analysis under investigation in the FBI laboratory. Crime Laboratory Digest, 15 (1), 8–21.Google Scholar
Budowle, B., Waye, J.S., ShutlerG.G., G.G., & Baechtel, F.S. (1990). HaeIII—A suitable restriction endonuclease for restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of biological evidence samples. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 35 (3), 530–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of sociology in translation: Domestication of scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In Law, J. (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge, 196–233. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Casper, M.J., & Clarke, A. (1998). Making the pap smear into the ‘right tool’ for the job: Cervical cancer screening in the USA, circa 1940–95. Social Studies of Science, 28 (2), 255–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castonguay, R.T. (1988). Message from the Assistant Director in charge of the FBI laboratory. Crime Laboratory Digest, 15 (Supplement), 1–2.Google Scholar
Cole, S. (1998). Witnessing identification: Latent fingerprinting evidence and expert knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 28 (5–6), 687–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H.M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Daemmrich, A. (1998). The evidence does not speak for itself: Expert witnessing and the organization of DNA typing companies. Social Studies of Science, 28, 741–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, L. (2003). Agency and structure in the history of DNA profiling: The stabilization and standardization of a new technology. Dissertation, U California, San Diego. URL: http://web.mala.bc.ca/derksenl/Publications/DNA%20Profiling%20History.htmGoogle Scholar
Edmond, G. (1999). Science, law and narrative: Helping the ‘facts’ speak for themselves. Southern Illinois Law Journal, 23, 555–583.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. (2002). Contested representations of law, science (and non-science) and society. Social Studies of Science, 32 (3), 371–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujimura, J. (1992). Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and ‘translation’. In Pickering, A. (Ed.), Science as practice and culture, 168–211. Chicago: U Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Golan, T. (2004). Laws of men and laws of nature: The history of scientific expert testimony in England and America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halfon, S. (1998). Collecting, testing, convincing: Forensic DNA experts in the courts. Social Studies of Science, 28 801–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, J. (1988). DNA profiling: A tool for law enforcement. Washington DC: FBI.Google Scholar
Hicks, J.W. (1989a). FBI program for the forensic application of DNA technology. In Ballantyne, J., Sensabaugh, G. & Witkowski, J. (Eds), DNA technology and forensic science, 209–212. Cold Spring Harbor, NY:Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
Hicks, J.W. (1989b). Open discussion. In Ballantyne, J.Sensabaugh, G. & Witkowski, J.(Eds), DNA technology and forensic science. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
Hicks, J.W. (1990). Letter to Evan A. Davis (Counsel to Governor Cuomo), 17 July 1990. Box Containing Jan Witkowksi's Materials Related to DNA Fingerprinting and the Banbury Conference on ‘DNA Technology and Forensic Science’ [uncatalogued]. Personal Collection of Jan Witkowski, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Archive.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17 195–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (1991). Acceptable evidence in pluralistic society. In Mayo, D.G. & Hollander, R. (Eds), Acceptable evidence: Science and values in risk management, 29–47. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (1995). Science at the bar: Law, science, and technology in America. Cambridge, MA:Harvard UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (1998). Harmonization—The politics of reasoning together. In Bal, R. & Halffman, W. (Eds), The politics of chemical risk, 173–194. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Jordan, K., & Lynch, M. (1998). The dissemination, standardization, and routinization of molecular biological technique. Social Studies of Science, 28, 773–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehler, J. (1993). Error and exaggeration in the presentation of DNA evidence. Jurimetrics Journal, 34, 21–39.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
Law, J. (1987). Technology, closure and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion. In Bijker, W.Pinch, T. & Hughes, T.P.(Eds), The social construction of technological systems, 111–134. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. (1998). The discursive production of uncertainty: The OJ Simpson ‘Dream Team’ and the sociology of knowledge machine. Social Studies of Science, 28 (5–6), 829–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. (2002). Protocols, practices, and the reproduction of technique in molecular biology. British Journal of Sociology, 53 (2), 203–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, M., Cole, S., McNallyR., R., & Jordan, K. (forthcoming). Truth machine: The contentious history of DNA profiling. Chicago: Chicago UP.Google Scholar
Lynch, M., & Jasanoff, S. (1998). Introduction. Special Issue: Contested identities: science, law and forensic practice. Social Studies of Science, 28, 675–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mnookin, J. (2001). Scripting expertise: The history of handwriting identification evidence and the judicial construction of reliability. Virginia Law Review, 87, 1723–1845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murch, R. (1988). Summary of the [FBI] DNA technology seminar. Crime Laboratory Digest, 15 (3), 79–85.Google Scholar
O'Connell, J. (1993). Metrology: The creation of universality by the circulation of particulars. Social Studies of Science, 23 (1), 129–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Presley, L. (1990). Testimony in State of Ohio v. Amos Lee, 5 December 1990, pp. 446–447. From O.J. Simpson Murder Trial and DNA Typing Archive, #53/12/3037, Box 1. Division of Rare and Manuscripts Collections, Cornell University Library.Google Scholar
Redmayne, M. (1997). Expert evidence and scientific disagreement. UC-Davis Law Review, 30, 1027–1080.Google Scholar
Redmayne, M. (2001). Expert evidence and criminal justice. Oxford:Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, S. (1992). Late Victorian metrology and its instrumentation: A manufactory of Ohms. In Bud, R. & Cozzens, S.E. (Eds), Invisible connections: Instruments, institutions, and science, 23–56. Bellingham, WA: SPIE Optical Engineering Press.Google Scholar
Sessions, W. (1989). Invited editorial. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 34 (5), 1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. & Wynne, B. (1989). Introduction. In Smith, R. & Wynne, B. (Eds), Expert evidence: Interpreting science in the law, 1–22. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Star, S.L., & Griesemer, J.R. (1989). Institutional ecology: ‘Translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermans, S., & Berg, M. (1997). Standardization in action: Achieving local universality through medical protocols. Social Studies of Science, 27, 273–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TWGDAM. (n.d. a). Participants list. In FBI Academy, A resource manual compiled from the legal aspects of forensic DNA analysis seminar, 26–28 February 1990, p. 112. From O.J. Simpson Murder Trial and DNA Typing Archive, #53/12/3037, Box 2. Division of Rare and Manuscripts Collections, Cornell University Library.Google Scholar
TWGDAM. (n.d. b) Publicity material. In: FBI Academy, A resource manual compiled from the legal aspects of forensic DNA analysis seminar, 26–28 February 1990, p. 94. From O.J. Simpson Murder Trial and DNA Typing Archive, #53/12/3037, Box 2. Division of Rare and Manuscripts Collections, Cornell University Library.Google Scholar
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1990). Genetic witness: The forensic uses of DNA tests. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. (1990a). Testimony of P. Bereano before the FBI Oversight and Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 1990 (DNA Identification) Hearing. 101st Congress, 1st session. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. (1990b). Testimony of E. Lander before the FBI Oversight and Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 1990 (DNA Identification) Hearing. 101st Congress, 1st session. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. (1990c). William Sessions to Representative Don Edwards, 9 August 1989. In FBI Oversight and Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 1990 (DNA Identification) Hearing, 22 March 1989, 800–804. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. (1990d) FBI Oversight and Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 1990 (DNA Identification). 101st Cong., 1st session. Washington, DC: GPO.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. (1990e) Jeff Brown to Don Edwards, 9 August 1989. In FBI Oversight and Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 1990 (DNA Identification), 424–430. 101st Cong., 1st session. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution. (1990a). Testimony of J. Hicks. In DNA Identification: Hearing before First Session on genetic testing as a means of criminal investigation. Serial # J-101-4. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution. (1990b). ‘DNA Identification’. First Session on ‘Genetic Testing as a means of Criminal Investigation, 15 March 1989, Serial # J-101-4. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (1989). Establishing the rules of laws: Constructing expert authority. In Wynne, B. & Smith, R. (Eds.), Expert evidence: Interpreting science in the law, 23–55. London: Routledge.Google Scholar